[This post has been originally posted on ecoevotransparency.org] We all heard about Open Science, and particularly Plan S, which has been announced in Europe last year (read more here). On 14th February 2019, I had an opportunity to be a panelist during discussion on what it all could mean for Australia. The panel discussion was organised by Springer Nature as a part of the ALIA conference, which is the main meeting for the librarians and information specialists in Australia and New Zealand (I realised these are mostly lovely middle-aged ladies, although they said more men are starting to join this profession with the new technologies, closing the “gender gap”).
[This post has been originally posted on ecoevotransparency.org] I am very excited to announce the launch of EcoEvoRxiv – a preprint server where ecologists and evolutionary biologists can upload their forthcoming papers. I am aware that many ecologists and evolutionary biologists already use the preprint service, bioRxiv and that’s great! I have used bioRxiv several times myself. EcoEvoRxiv is a more targeted server, and it is convenient because a preprint at EcoEvoRxiv can seamlessly integrate a project that makes use of the services at the Open Science Framework (OSF).
[This post has been originally posted on ecoevotransparency.org] Last week (14-15 Nov, 2018), I went to Melbourne for a workshop (“From Replication Crisis to Credibility Revolution”). The workshop was hosted by my collaborator and “credibility revolutionary” Fiona Fidler. I suspect many workshops and mini-conferences of this nature are popping out all over the world as many researchers are very much aware of “reproducibility crisis”. But what was unique about this one is its interdisciplinary nature; we had philosophers, psychologists, computer scientists, lawyers, pharmacologists, oncologists, statisticians, ecologists and evolutionary biologists (like myself).
[This post has been originally posted on ecoevotransparency.org] Physicist Carl Sagan famously said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I think its useful to extend this to the distinctly less elegant “surprising findings are less likely to be true, and thus require a higher standard of evidence.” I started thinking more about what influences the reliability of a scientific result when analyses of my post-doc data weren’t lining up with published findings from other studies of the same species.