SÉMINAIRES DE L’UNF
|Présentateur:||Dr Tal Yarkoni|
|Titre:||How to survive and thrive as an open scientist|
|Endroit:||CRIUGM Amphithéâtre Le Groupe Maurice (http://www.criugm.qc.ca/en/contact.html)|
|Date:||Jeudi 17 mai, 13h-14h|
*La conférence sera présentée en anglais
Dr Yarkoni is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas, where he directs the Psychoinformatics Lab. His research focuses on the development and application of new methods for acquiring, organizing, and synthesizing psychological data on a large scale. Tal’s work applies techniques from behavioral psychology, functional neuroimaging, and computer science to multiple domains within psychology, with a particular focus on personality and individual differences.
In principle, science is a cumulative, community-driven enterprise. To make new discoveries, researchers build directly on the products of other researchers’ efforts, and in turn, reciprocally share their own findings with the world. In practice, of course, things rarely proceed quite so idealistically. Researchers regularly hide their latest findings from one another as they compete for publication in rarified journals; data and protocols are hoarded to maintain competitive advantage; and « Questionable Research Practices » such as optional stopping and selective reporting are engaged in with alarming frequency, often under the justification that there is no other way for a modern scientist to succeed. In this talk I take issue with this philosophy, and argue that it is indeed possible for an open scientist to both survive and thrive in the modern environment. I review a series of open practices that can help advance one’s career while simultaneously maximizing the reproducibility, reliability, and accessibility of one’s scientific work. These include preprint deposition, open-access publication, preregistration, version control, and social media use, among others. I dispel a number of myths about these practices, and review empirical evidence suggesting that they are, if anything, beneficial to one’s reputation. I conclude by suggesting that early-career scientists are no longer faced with a hard choice between good science and good politics, and encouraging researchers to actively contribute to the rapid ongoing shift in structural incentives and cultural expectations.