Open Science Feed

OSSCi (non-profit working on open source science tools) is working on a project that maps the OSS ecosystem, specifically tools that are used in science, and we're starting with generative AI, machine learning, and materials science. Here's a very very very minimal demo of the map:

https://map.opensource.science/

and here's a discourse forum we're collecting info on

https://community.opensource.science/t/mapping-the-oss-tool-landscape/28

geteilt von: https://feddit.de/post/2522760

The original article is in German, here are a few sections translated: "There are many tools to conduct online surveys, both for small simple surveys and for more complex surveys in a scientific setting. Some of them, such as Cryptpad Forms and LimeSurvey, are also open source - an overview. (...)

Tools for simple surveys: Cryptpad Forms, Nextcloud Forms, FramaForms

Tools for more complex surveys: But also for more complex surveys there are now a variety of different software offerings. Unipark and SosciSurvey are tried and tested here, but with FormR and LimeSurvey there are also open source alternatives. (...)

Conclusion With Cryptpad Forms or Nextcloud Forms for simple surveys and LimeSurvey or FormR for more complex surveys, there are now very good open source solutions for conducting online surveys that cover different requirements.

Questions for you What experience do you have with the online survey tools presented here? Which other tools have you already used and how can you recommend them?"

(article by @[email protected])

If you missed the @FORRT webinar, hosted by the Center for Open Science, I highly recommend it!

@openscience #OpenScience #OpenScholarship #Education #Psychology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ2m4OZKLVY

The turmoil surrounding Elon Musk’s handling of his Twitter takeover has renewed concern over the perils of a public good in private hands (Nature 613, 19–21 (2023); see also Nature 614, 602; 2023). Another form of scholarly public discourse is also owned by profit-driven entities — academic publishers. We propose an answer to both problems.

The most-discussed solution for Twitter is migration to Mastodon (see Science 378, 583–584; 2022), a social-technology platform that communicates over a distributed network of servers (‘instances’ in the ‘Fediverse’), akin to e-mail, and is immune to private takeover. Similarly federated solutions exist for journal articles (B. Brembs et al. Preprint at Zenodo https://doi.org/gn6jjc; 2021), but free social interaction is still hampered by inertia in scholarly organizations — in particular, resistance by scholarly societies that rely heavily on publication income.

There is now a golden opportunity for every scholarly society to implement a Mastodon instance for anyone interested in their field. If the academic community can create a public resource protected from private interests, it could become a model for bringing the remaining scholarly record — encompassing text, data and code — into the Fediverse.

Nature 614, 624 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00486-3

Hi, I'm currently working on an assignment regarding p-hacking. I want to make the point that p-hacking can have real-life consequences, as the data being put out there could be applied in the wrong way. I already have an example of how p-hacking led to the WHO canceling their distribution of malaria medication.

But, I need a specific example from psychology, and I can't find anything. I find plenty of papers explaining that p-hacking is common and why it's a problem, but no concrete examples of studies where p-hacking was discovered. Does anyone have an example in mind? Or maybe a study whose results have been questioned?

Thank you in advance!