| 1. |
- Aczel, Balazs, et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting multi-analyst studies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: eLIFE. - : eLife Sciences Publications. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Armeni, Kristijan, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices : The role of open science communities
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Science and Public Policy. - : Oxford University Press. - 0302-3427 .- 1471-5430. ; 48:5, s. 605-611
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite the increasing availability of Open Science (OS) infrastructure and the rise in policies to change behaviour, OS practices are not yet the norm. While pioneering researchers are developing OS practices, the majority sticks to status quo. To transition to common practice, we must engage a critical proportion of the academic community. In this transition, OS Communities (OSCs) play a key role. OSCs are bottom-up learning groups of scholars that discuss OS within and across disciplines. They make OS knowledge more accessible and facilitate communication among scholars and policymakers. Over the past two years, eleven OSCs were founded at several Dutch university cities. In other countries, similar OSCs are starting up. In this article, we discuss the pivotal role OSCs play in the large-scale transition to OS. We emphasize that, despite the grassroot character of OSCs, support from universities is critical for OSCs to be viable, effective, and sustainable.
|
|
| 3. |
- Huntington-Klein, Nick, et al.
(författare)
-
Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Royal Society Open Science. - : The Royal Society. - 2054-5703 .- 2054-5703. ; 11:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many-analysts studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same dataset by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g. effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a dataset, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item subjective evidence evaluation survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous many-analysts study.
|
|
| 4. |
- Uhlmann, Eric, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey For Multi-Analyst Studies
- 2024
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Multi-analyst studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same data set by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g., effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a data set, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous multi-analyst study.
|
|
