Neuromag May 2017 - Page 18

ably you want the first crack at the data you have painstakingly collected. This is no problem. You can arrange a data embargo period (say, one year). Your data is uploaded along with the first publication arising and you know you have one year from that point for exclusive opportunity for further anal- ysis. The advantage of this system is that we continue to reward hard ex- perimental work while reducing the incidence of valuable data languishing on someone’s hard-drive for years (“I’ll get to that other analysis sometime”). Encouraging others to adopt these practices Changing the way you do science is hard. There is a lot of inertia, which is greater for those who have been doing it longer. Students are at an advantage in this respect, but also have to abide by their supervisors’ wishes. Even if you agree with my suggestions above, it is probably not possible for you to adopt them all right now. That is fine. Start by telling others about them and encouraging others to do the same thing. Slowly, best practice is changing. What can you do right now? Consider signing the Peer Reviewer’s Openness Initiative, or PRO – [8]. As a signatory to PRO, you ask authors to make their data and materials available as a con- dition of peer review. Imagine you accept a review request. You check whether the authors make their materials available and if not then you write back to the editor asking the authors to either (a) make their data and materials available or (b) write in the manuscript why they do not. If the authors refuse to do either (a) or (b), your recommendation is to reject the manuscript because it does not meet the minimum standards for a scientific paper. This might seem harsh, but con- sider that you are not judging the justi- fication for (b) – it could be something more (“our raw data contain identifi- able patient information, but we make anonymised summary data available”) or less (“we’re too lazy to clean up our code and upload our data”) legitimate. You don’t care, so long as it appears in the main text of the manuscript. As a reviewer, you can give open sci- ence and transparent practices a push along. 18 | NEUROMAG | May 2017 Conclusion Science is in a replication crisis, but thankfully people are becoming in- creasingly aware of the issues and implementing ways to improve them. Consider trying to adopt the following practices in your scientific work: • • • • Clearly discriminate exploratory and confirmatory analyses Pre-register your next experiment Make data and materials openly available Encourage others to do the same While these measures will not fix the underlying problem (incentives for scientific career advancement), they will help to improve the quality of sci- entific output. * I’m not saying that high-impact pa- pers are generally less likely to be true than papers in other outlets, but there is some worrying evidence that high- impact papers tend to feature lower statistical power and larger bias in ef- fect size estimates in some fields Tom Wallis is a project leader in the CRC 1233 "Robust Vision" at the Centre for Integrative Neuroscience in Tübingen. He blogs infrequently at Author’s note Parts of this article were adapted from the author’s earlier blog post, found at I use the term “irrepli- cability” rather than “irreproducibility” because “reproducible” research is when you get the same result from the same data and analysis (i.e. there’s no silly error in the analysis script or re- porting) whereas a “replicable” finding is one that can be found repeatedly in independent (but as-far-as-possible- identical) experiments [9, 10]. [1] tion_crisis [2] scienceofus/2016/09/a-helpful-rundown- of-psychologys-replication-crisis.html [3] Brembs B. et al. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(291), 1-12 [4] www.neuromag.wordpress. com/2016/01/12/why-science-is-broken/ [5] fool-themselves-and-how-they-can- stop-1.18517 [6] search/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf [7] reports/ [8] [9] replicability-in-science/replicability-vs- reproducibility.html [10] nll/?p=21956