text:
Framework for
Open and
Reproducible
FORRT's Clusters
In order to teach open and reproducible science effectively, educators need to make sense of almost a decade of literature, across several fields, and be informed about ongoing (and often dynamic) debates. This is a tall ask for most educators. So FORRT sought to develop strategies and propose solutions to mitigate the effects of competing academic interests and help scholars implement open and reproducible science tenets in their teaching and mentoring workflow. In an effort to reduce some of the burden on educators wishing to learn or teach these concepts, FORRT has draw on the expertise of more than 50 experts from its community to provide educators with a comprehensive but straightforward accessible didactic framework. FORRT clusters is a result of a comprehensive literature review guided by educational, pedagogical and didactic considerations aiming at providing a pathway towards the incremental adoption of Open and Reproducible Science tenets into educators/scholars teaching and mentoring. The focus lies not on simply aggregating the literature into bins, but on making sense of existing works, weaving connections where none exist, and providing a sensible learning-oriented Open and Reproducible Science taxonomy. FORRT taxonomy is composed of 7 clusters:
Reproducibility and replicability knowledge
Conceptual and statistical knowledge
Reproducible analyses
FAIR data and materials
Replication research
Academic life and culture
We further breakdown each cluster into sub-categories to provide educators/scholars with useful information on the extant of open science scholarship, and how they are connected to one another. The idea behind specifying clusters and sub-clusters it to highlight we have drawn fuzzy boundaries between clusters while allowing for diversification and heterogeneity in how each educator integrates these cluster/sub-clusters with their respective field content. The breakdown of each cluster into sub-categories provides scholars with useful information on the extant of open science scholarship, and how they are connected to one another. To have a look at the sub-clusters within each cluster, please click on the clusters above.
See below for each cluster, its description, sub-clusters, and associated works geared for teaching. And here's an attempt to visualize FORRT's clusters:
FORRT's Syllabus
Building on the clusters we created a "Open and Reproducible Science" Syllabus. We hope it can serve as starting point for your class. .pdf download or editable G-doc version. Check out the FORRT's syllabus page.
Cluster 1: Reproducibility Crisis and Credibility Revolution
Attainment of foundational knowledge on the emergence of, and importance of, reproducible and open research (i.e., grounding the motivations and theoretical underpinnings of Open and Reproducible Science). Integration with field specific content (i.e., grounded in the history of replicability). There are 6 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
History of the reproducibility crisis & credibility revolution.
Exploratory and confirmatory analyses.
Questionable research practices and their prevalence.
Proposed improvement science initiatives on statistics, measurement, teaching, data sharing, code sharing, pre-registration, replication.
Ongoing debates (e.g., incentives for and against open science).
Ethical considerations for improved practices.
QRPs
Ongoing debates
History of the reproducibility crisis & credibility revolution
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News, 533(7604), 452. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature, 533(7604), 3–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00067-3
Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400884940
Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J., … SchulteMecklenbeck, M. (2018, November 16). 7 easy steps to open science: An annotated reading list. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cfzyx
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2016). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
Merton, R., K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. 10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Merton, R., K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. ISIS, 79(4), 606-623. 10.1086/354848
Munafo, M. R., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. DOI: 10.0138/s41562-016-0021
Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884
Exploratory and confirmatory analyses
Confirmatory analyses refer to tests of hypotheses that are formulated prior to data collection. Exploratory analyses refer to everything else.
Lin, W., & Green, D. P. (2016). Standard operating procedures: A safety net for pre-analysis plans. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3), 495-500.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Mass, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. doi:10.1177/1745691612463078
Wagenmakers , E.-J., Dutilh, G., & Sarafoglou, A. (2018). The Creativity-Verification Cycle in Psychological Science: New Methods to Combat Old Idols. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618771357
Questionable research practices and their prevalence
The ways in which researchers engage in behaviors and decision-making that increase the probability of their (consciously or unconsciously) desired result.
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no "fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society open science, 3(9), 160384.https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R. C., & Van Assen, M. A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in psychology, 7.
Proposed improvement science initiatives on statistics, measurement, teaching, data sharing, code sharing, pre-registration, replication
Published checklists and other resources that can be used to shift behavior more toward improved practices.
Lindsay (2020) Seven steps toward transparency and replicability in psychological science. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne.
Ioannidis, J. P., Munafo, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(5), 235-241.
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
Peng, R. (2015). The reproducibility crisis in science: A statistical counterattack. Significance, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00827.x
Ongoing debates (e.g., incentives for and against open science)
Bahlai et al. (2019). Open science isn't always open to all scientists. American Scientist, 107(2), 78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.78
Chen, X., Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Dasler, R., Feger, S., Fokianos, P., Gonzalez, J. B., … & Rodriguez, D. R. et al. (2019). Open is not enough. Nature : Physics, 15 (2), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0342-2
Drummond, C. (2018).; Reproducible research: a minority opinion. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 30(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2017.1413140
Fanelli, D. (2018). Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2628-2631. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114
Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2013). US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37), 15031-15036. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302997110
Fell, M. J. (2019). The economic impacts of open science: A rapid evidence assessment. Publications, 7(3), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030046
Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531‑536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401
Ethical considerations for improved practices
Brabeck, M. M. (2021). Open science and feminist ethics: Promises and challenges of open access. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211030926
Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887-4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115
Chopik, W. J., Bremner, R. H., Defever, A. M., & Keller, V. N. (2018). How (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762900
Jones, NL. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 25-43. DOI:https://doi.org/ 0.1007/s11948-006-0007-x
Cluster 2: Conceptual and Statistical Knowledge
Attainment of a grounding in fundamental statistics, measurement, and its implications encompassing conceptual knowledge, application, interpretation and communication of statistical analyses. There are 5 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
The logic of null hypothesis testing, p-values, Type I and II errors (and when and why they might happen).
Limitations and benefits of NHST, Bayesian and Likelihood approaches.
Effect sizes, Statistical power, Confidence Intervals.
Research Design, Sample Methods, and its implications for inferences.
Questionable measurement practices (QMPs), validity and reliability issues.
NHST
Effect-sizes & cia
QMPs
Banerjee, A., Chitnis, UB., Jadhav, SL., Bhawalkar, JS., Chaudhury, S. (2009). Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 18(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00827.x
Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641-651. doi: 10.1177/1745691614551642
Lakens, D. Improving your statistical inferences. Online course. https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
Etz, A., Gronau, Q.F., Dablander, F. et al. (2018). How to become a Bayesian in eight easy steps: An annotated reading list. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 25, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1317-5
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: Aa guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–50. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Nuzzo, R. (2014). Statistical errors: P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature, 506(7487), 150-152. doi:10.1038/506150a
Brysbaert, M. and Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A Tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1): 9, pp. 1–20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–50. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Pek, J., & Flora, D. B. (2018). Reporting effect sizes in original psychological research: A discussion and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 208-225. http://doi.org/10.1037/met0000126
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 319-332.
Gervais et al. (2015). A powerful nudge? Presenting calculable consequences of underpowered research shifts incentives towards adequately powered designs. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 847-854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615584199
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R., & Van Assen, M. A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1832.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2019, January 17). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hs7wm
Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2018, November 19). Hidden invalidity among fifteen commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7rbfp
Rodebaugh, T. L., Scullin, R. B., Langer, J. K., Dixon, D. J., Huppert, J. D., Bernstein, A., . . . Lenze, E. J. (2016). Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 840-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000184
Cluster 3: Reproducible analyses
Attainment of the how-to basics of reproducible reports and analyses. It requires students to move towards transparent and scripted analysis practices. There are 6 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
Strengths of reproducible pipelines.
Scripted analyses compared with GUI.
Data wrangling.
Programming reproducible data analyses.
Open source and free software.
Tools to check yourself and others.
Reproducible pipelines
Scripted Analyses
Automating data analysis to make the process easier
Gandrud, C. (2016). Reproducible research with R and R Sstudio. New York; CRC Press
Wilson G, Bryan J, Cranston K, Kitzes J, Nederbragt L, et al. (2017) Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLOS Computational Biology 13(6): e1005510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
Reproducible Research in R Workshop Overview
Monash's Data Fluency Reproducible Research in R (RRR)
ProjectTier
Writing analyses in programming language compared to performing them with a point-and-click menu.
Processing and restructuring data so that it is more useful for analyse.
Nick Fox's Writing Reproducible Scientific Papers in R
PsuTeachR's Data Skills for Reproducible Science
Programming reproducible data analyses
Making sure anyone can reproduce analyses through things like well-commented scripts, writing codebooks, etc.
Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L., & Teal, T. K. (2017). Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLoS computational biology, 13(6). e1005510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
Open Stats Lab
Software Carpentry
Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners
Chao, L. (2009). Utilizing open source tools for online teaching and learning Information Science. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Tools to check yourself and others
Includes tools such as statcheck.io, GRIM, and SPRITE
Brown, N. J., & Heathers, J. A. (2016). The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550616673876. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550616673876
Nuijten, M. B., Van Assen, M. A. L. M., Hartgerink, C. H. J., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2017). The validity of the tool "statcheck" in discovering statistical reporting inconsistencies. Preprint retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/tcxaj/.
van der Zee, T., Anaya, J., & Brown, N. J. (2017). Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab. BMC Nutrition, 3(1), 54. DOI 10.1186/s40795-017-0167-x
Cluster 4: Open (FAIR) data and materials analyses
Attainment of a grounding in open (FAIR) data and materials. It requires students to learn about FAIR data (and education materials) principles: findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability; engage with reasons to share data, the initiatives designed to increase scientific openness; as well as ethical considerations and consequences of open (FAIR) data practices. There are 6 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
Publication models.
Reasons to share; for science, and for one's own practices.
Repositories such as OSF, FigShare, GitHub, Zenodo.
Accessing or sharing others data, code, and materials.
Ethical considerations.
Examples and consequences of accessing un/open data.
Publication models
Traditional publication models, open access models, preprints, etc.
Hardwicke, T. E., Mathur, M. B., MacDonald, K., Nilsonne, G., Banks, G. C., Kidwell, M. C., … & Lenne, R. L. (2018). Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180448
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "many labs" replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
Rouder, J. N. (2016). The what, why, and how of born open data. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1062–1069. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z
Siler, K., Haustein, S., Smith, E., Larivière, V., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research. PeerJ, 6, e4269. doi:10.7717/peerj.4269
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Reasons to share; for science, and for one's own practices
Colavizza, G., Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Staden, I., Whitaker, K., & McGillivray, B. (2020). The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PloS One, 15(4), e0230416.
Levenstein, M. C., & Lyle, J. A. (2018). Data: Sharing Is Caring. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918758319
Piwowar, H.A., & Vision, T.J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
Stodden, V. C. (2011). Trust your science? Open your data and code. Amstat News, 409, 21-22.
Repositories such as OSF, FigShare, GitHub, Zenodo
Gilmore, R. O., Kennedy, J. L., & Adolph, K. E. (2018). Practical solutions for sharing data and materials from psychological research. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917746500
Soderberg, C. K. (2018). Using OSF to Share Data: A Step-by-Step Guide. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757689
osf.io
figshare.com
zenodo.org
Accessing or sharing others data, code, and materials
Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2018). Open sharing of data on close relationships and other sensitive social psychological topics: Challenges, tools, and future directions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917744281
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R., & Van Assen, M. A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1832.
Hand, D. J. (2018). Aspects of data ethics in a changing world: Where are we now? Big Data, 6(3), :176–190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2018.0083
O'Callaghan, E., & Douglas, H. M. (2021). #MeToo Online Disclosures: A Survivor-Informed Approach to Open Science Practices and Ethical Use of Social Media Data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211039175
Ross, M. W., Iguchi, M. Y., & Panicker, S. (2018). Ethical aspects of data sharing and research participant protections. American Psychologist, 73(2), 138-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000240
Walsh, C. G., Xia, W., Li, M., Denny, J. C., Harris, P. A., & Malin, B. A. (2018). Enabling open-science initiatives in clinical psychology and psychiatry without sacrificing patients' privacy: Current practices and future challenges. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917749652
Examples and consequences of accessing un/open data
Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M., Bishop, D. V. M., Nichols, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917751886
Cluster 5: Preregistration
Preregistration entails laying out a complete methodology and analysis before a study has been undertaken. This facilitates transparency and removes several potential QRPs. When teaching, students should attain knowledge regarding what a pre-registration entails, why it is important to remove potential QRPs and how to address deviations from preregistered plans. There are 6 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
Purpose of preregistration.
Preregistration and registered reports - strengths and differences.
When can you preregister? Can you pre-register secondary data?
Understanding the types of preregistration and writing one.
Comparing a preregistration to a final study manuscript.
Conducting a preregistered study.
Types & How-to
Purpose of preregistration
Distinguishing exploratory and confirmatory analyses, transparency measures.
Dal-Ré, R., Ioannidis, J. P., Bracken, M. B., Buffler, P. A., Chan, A.-W., Franco, E. L., La Vecchia, C., Weiderpass, E. (2014). Making prospective registration of observational research a reality. Science translational medicine, 6(224), 224cm1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3007513
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141.
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A., & Mellor, D. (2018). The Preregistration Revolution. Proceedings of National Academy Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves — and how they can stop. Nature, 526, 182–185.
Wagenmakers, E. J., & Dutilh, G. (2016). Seven selfish reasons for preregistration. APS Observer, 29(9).
Preregistration and registered reports - strengths and differences
*OSC, CREP, ManyLabs, etc.
Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49(3), 609-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016
Chambers, C. D., Feredoes, E., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Etchells, P. (2014). Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond. AIMS Neuroscience, 1(1), 4–17. DOI: 10.3934/Neuroscience2014.1.4
Chambers, C.D., Dienes, Z., McIntosh, R.D., Rotshtein, P., & Willmes, K. (2015). Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing. Cortex, 66, A1-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022
Chambers, C.D., Dienes, Z., McIntosh, R.D., Rotshtein, P., & Willmes, K. (2015). Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing. Cortex, 66, A1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022
Haven, Tamarinde., L. & Van Grootel, Leonie. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229-244., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
Kirtley, O. J., Lafit, G., Achterhof, R., Hiekkaranta, A. P., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2019, April 10). Making the black box transparent: A pre-registration template for studies using Experience Sampling Methods (ESM). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/seyq7
Mertens, G., & Krypotos, A. (2019, February 20). Preregistration of secondary analyses. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ph4q7
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
COS: What is Preregistration?
COS: 10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration
COS: 8 Answers About Registered Reports and Research Preregistration
Wiley's Reviewing Registered Reports
L. Haven, T., & Van Grootel, D. L. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A., & Mellor, D. (2018). The Preregistration Revolution. PNAS, 115(11), 2600-2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
COS: One Preregistration to Rule Them All?
Cluster 6: Replication research
Attainment of a grounding in 'replication research', which takes a variety of forms, each with a different purpose and contribution. Reproducible science requires replication research. When teaching, students should understand the purpose and need of replications in its variety of forms and being able to conduct (and join) replication projects. There are 6 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
Purposes of replication attempts - what is a 'failed' replication?
Large scale replication attempts.
Distinguishing direct and conceptual replications.
Conducting replication studies; challenges, limitations, and comparisons with the original study.
Registered Replication Reports (RRR).
The politics of replicating famous studies.
Direct vs conceptual
Conducting replications
Fidler, F., & Wilcox, J. (2018). Reproducibility of scientific results. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2018). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/scientific-reproducibility/
Frank, M. C., & Saxe, R. (2012). Teaching replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 600–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460686
García, FM. (2016). Replication and the manufacture of scientific inferences: A formal approach. International Studies Perspectives, 17(4), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekv011
Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454-6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113
Zwaan, R.A., Etz, A., Lucas, R.E, Donnellan, M.B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 41, e120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001972
Large scale replication attempts
Open Science Collaboration (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aaC6716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaC6716
ManyPrimates
Distinguishing direct and conceptual replications
Direct replications use the exact same methods and materials, while conceptual replications test the same concept but with different methods, materials, or both.
Kunert, R. (2016). Internal conceptual replications do not increase independent replication success. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 23(5), 1631-1638. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1030-9
Simons, D. J. (2014). The Value of Direct Replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755
Conducting replication studies; challenges, limitations, and comparisons with the original study
Grahe, J. E., Brandt, M. J., Wagge, J. R., Legate, N., Wiggins, B. J., Christopherson, C. D., . . . LePine, S. (2018). Collaborative Replications and Education Project (CREP). Retrieved from https://osf.io/wfc6u/
Grahe, J. E., Reifman, A., Hermann, A. D., Walker, M., Oleson, K. C., Nario-Redmond, M., & Wiebe, R. P. (2012). Harnessing the undiscovered resource of student research projects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 605–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459057
Lenne & Mann (2016). CREP project report. https://osf.io/sdj7e/
Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528518
Wagge, J. R., Brandt, M. J., Lazarevic, L. B., Legate, N., Christopherson, C., Wiggins, B., & Grahe, J. E. (2019). Publishing research with undergraduate students via replication work: The collaborative replications and education project. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 247.
Registered Replication Reports
Registered Reports are studies that are peer-reviewed prior to data collection, with an agreement between the journal and the author(s) that it will be published regardless of outcome as long as the preregistered methods are reasonably followed. Registered REPLICATION Reports are a special category of these that only include replications.
Simons, D. J., Holcombe, A. O., & Spellman, B. A. (2014). An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 552–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614543974
Ongoing Replication projects https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replication/ongoing-projects
Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P., Bahník, Š., Birch, S., Birt, A. R., … & Buswell, K. (2014). Registered replication report: Schooler and engstler-schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 556-578.
Eerland, A., Sherrill, A. M., Magliano, J. P., Zwaan, R. A., Arnal, J. D., Aucoin, P., … & Crocker, C. (2016). Registered replication report: Hart & albarracín (2011). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 158-171.
Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) Ongoing Replications
The politics of replicating famous studies
Sometimes responses to replication research can be negative. Failed replications of famous work, most notably power posing, ego depletion, stereotype threat, and facial feedback, have received a lot of attention.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(4), 85-90.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1993). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8(6), 21-29.
Cluster 7: Academic Life, Ethics and Culture
Attainment of a grounding in topics related to academia and academics. Students should understand how individuals, teams, institutions, and academic culture work together to promote (or hinder) openness, inclusion, diversity, equity and transparency. Gathering perspectives on navigating scientific and academic life. Learning the challenges and rewards in the academic setting, the "hidden curriculum" in academic life.
There are 8 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:
Adversarial collaboration
The structure of and incentives in academia
Types of academic, non-academic & alt-academic positions
Diversity is the presence of difference within a specific environment, e.g. racial diversity, gender diversity, social-economic diversity, etc.
Bahlai, C., Bartlett, L. J., Burgio, K. R., Fournier, A., Keiser, C. N., Poisot, T., & Whitney, K. S. (2019). Open science isn't always open to all scientists. American Scientist, 107(2), 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.78
Cislak, A., Formanowicz, M., & Saguy, T. (2018). Bias against research on gender bias. Scientometrics, 115(1), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2667-0
Flaherty, C. (2020, August, 20). Something's Got to Give. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/20/womens-journal-submission-rates-continue-fall
Kim, E., & Patterson, S. (2020). The Pandemic and Gender Inequality in Academia. Available at SSRN 3666587. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3666587
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature News, 504(7479), 211. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Myers, K. R., Tham, W. Y., Yin, Y., Cohodes, N., Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C., … & Wang, D. (2020). Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists. Nature human behaviour, 4(9), 880-883.
Quagliata, T. (2008). Is there a positive correlation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement?. Paper: Education masters (p. 78). https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=education_ETD_masters
Roberson, M. L. (2020). On supporting early-career Black scholars. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0926-6
APA (2010). Sexual Orientation, Gender identity & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt
APA (2010). Disability & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/disability
APA. (2017, July). Women & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/women
APA (2017, July). Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities
APA (2017, July). Education and Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education
Equity is that everyone has access to the same opportunities and that we all have privileges and barriers, thus we do not all start from the same starting position.
APA. (2017, July). Women & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/women APA (2017, July). Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities
Inclusion is that individuals with different representations, identities and feelings being respected, influenced, and welcomed in a specific environment.
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244-260 https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
Eagly, A. H., & Miller, D. I. (2016). Scientific eminence: Where are the women?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 899-904.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Macoun, A., & Miller, D. (2014). Surviving (thriving) in academia: Feminist support networks and women ECRs. Journal of Gender Studies, 23(3), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2014.909718
Risner, L. E., Morin, X. K., Erenrich, E. S., Clifford, P. S., Franke, J., Hurley, I., & Schwartz, N. B. (2020). Leveraging a collaborative consortium model of mentee/mentor training to foster career progression of underrepresented postdoctoral researchers and promote institutional diversity and inclusion. PloS one, 15(9), e0238518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238518
Skitka, L. J., Melton, Z. J., Mueller, A. B., & Wei, K. Y. (2020). The Gender Gap: Who Is (and Is Not) Included on Graduate-Level Syllabi in Social/Personality Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167220947326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220947326
Citizen science is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists. Citizen science is sometimes described as "public participation in scientific research," participatory monitoring, and participatory action research whose outcomes are often advancements in scientific research by improving the scientific communities capacity, as well as an increasing the public's understanding of science.
Hart, D. D., & Silka, L. (2020). Rebuilding the ivory tower: bottom-up experiment in aligning research with societal needs. Issues Sci Technol, 36(3), 64-70. https://issues.org/aligning-research-with-societal-needs/
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984.
Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., & Parrish, J. K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436-1437.
Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research?. BioScience, 58(3), 192-197.
Team science institutions coordinate a large group of scientists to solve a problem. Individual scientists are rewarded a publication by the institution for their efforts and resources. Once a group signs onto a team science project, the institution serves as a coordinating role, merging the resources from all scientists and focusing on a common project.
Forscher, P. S., Wagenmakers, E. J., DeBruine, L., Coles, N., Silan, M. A., & IJzerman, H. (2020). A Manifesto for Team Science. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/2mdxh Silberzahn, R., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2015). Crowdsourced research: Many hands make tight work. Nature News, 526(7572), 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/526189a
Wagge, J. R., Brandt, M. J., Lazarevic, L. B., Legate, N., Christopherson, C., Wiggins, B., & Grahe, J. E. (2019). Publishing research with undergraduate students via replication work: The collaborative replications and education project. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00247
Adversarial collaborations
Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552421
Bateman, I., Kahneman, D., Munro, A., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2005). Testing competing models of loss aversion: An adversarial collaboration. Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1561-1580.
Structures and Incentives in academia
Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887-4890.
Corker, K. S. (2017). Why a Focus on Eminence is Misguided: A Call to Return to Basic Scientific Values. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yqfrd
Diener, E. (2016). Improving departments of psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 909-912.
Ebersole, C. R., Axt, J. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Scientists' reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. PLoS biology, 14(5), e1002460.
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
Feist, G. J. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic science: A dialectic of scientific fame. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 893-898.
Ferreira, F. (2017). Fame: I'm Skeptical. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6zb4f
Flier J. (2017) Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility. Nature, 549(7671),133. https://doi.org/10.1038/549133a
Foss, D. J. (2016). Eminence and omniscience: Statistical and clinical prediction of merit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 913-916.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Rewarding research transparency. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(11), 953-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.07.002
Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741-754.
Innes-Ker, Å. (2017). The Focus on Fame Distorts Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vyr3e
Ioannidis, J. P., & Thombs, B. D. (2019). A user's guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. European journal of clinical investigation, 49(9), e13151. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13151
Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231-19236.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2020). Reply to Kornfeld and Titus: No distraction from misconduct. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918001116
Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2016). Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature, 537(7618), 29-30.https://doi.org/10.1038/537029a
Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2020). Signaling the trustworthiness of science should not be a substitute for direct action against research misconduct. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917490116
Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F., & Livan, G. (2019). Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature communications, 10(1), 1-9.
Matosin, N., Frank, E., Engel, M., Lum, J. S., & Newell, K. A. (2014). Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 7(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.015123
Morgan, A. C., Economou, D. J., Way, S. F., & Clauset, A. (2018). Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Science, 7(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4
Naudet, F., Ioannidis, J., Miedema, F., Cristea, I. A., Goodman, S. N., & Moher, D. (2018). Six principles for assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90753/
Pickett, C. (2017). Let's Look at the Big Picture: A System-Level Approach to Assessing Scholarly Merit. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tv6nb
Roediger III, H. L. (2016). Varieties of fame in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 882-887.
Ruscio, J. (2016). Taking advantage of citation measures of scholarly impact: Hip Hip h Index!. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 905-908.
Shiota, M. N. (2017). "Fame" is the Problem:Conflation of Visibility With Potential for Long-Term Impact in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4kwuq
Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving credit where credit's due: Why it's so hard to do in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 888-892.
Tressoldi, P. E., Giofré, D., Sella, F., & Cumming, G. (2013). High impact= high statistical standards? Not necessarily so. PloS one, 8(2), e56180.
Sternberg, R. J. (2016). "Am I famous yet?" Judging scholarly merit in psychological science: An introduction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 877-881.
Vazire, S. (2017). Against eminence.https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/djbcw
Van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. B. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516-R517.
Gomez, P., Anderson, A. R., & Baciero, A. (2017). Lessons for psychology laboratories from industrial laboratories. Research Ethics, 13(3-4), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117693827
Nature. (2019). Postdocs in crisis: science cannot risk losing the next generation. Nature, 580, 160. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02541-9
Nature. (2019). The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention. Nature, 575, 257-258. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03489-1
Nature. (2020). Seeking an 'exit plan' for leaving academia amid coronavirus worries. Nature 583, 645-646. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02029-6.
It aims to understand the nature of gender inequality. Themes explored include discrimination, objectification, oppression, patriarchy, stereotyping, and aesthetics. It examines women's and men's social roles, experiences, interests, chores, and feminist politics in a variety of fields.
Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67(3), 211-230, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027260
Matsick, J. L., Kruk, M., Oswald, F., & Palmer, L. (2021). Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform. Psychology of Women Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211026564
Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2020). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What's the point? What's the practice?. Qualitative research in psychology, 17(2), 159-177 https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
Macleod, C. I., Capdevila, R., Marecek, J., Braun, V., Gavey, N., & Wilkinson, S. (2021). Celebrating 30 years of Feminism & Psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 31(3), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535211027457
Crawford, M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Feminist theory, feminist psychology: A bibliography of epistemology, critical analysis, and applications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(4), 477-491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01015.x
Marecek, J. (2016). Invited reflection: Intersectionality theory and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316641090
OpenSexism Archives on Open Science https://opensexism.wordpress.com/tag/open-science/


text:
Family Fun Camping Holidays
4251e028-8b75-4c01-b9a1-b39e0d6397a6
Becky Clements hopped on one leg, her blonde ponytail jiggling. "Let's go camping!" she said. "All of us! It'll be fun. Won't it?" Duncan and I looked at each other, then at her brother Tom, and parents Sue and Mike Clements.
"Weeeell," I said. "Yes, it'll be fun. But let's do more than camping. Let's have a properly active weekend, with camping in the middle. We can go mountain biking, walking, canoeing. The best place would be the Lake District… how about it?"
"I'd like to go on a high wire forest course," said Becky firmly. "Tom can go mountain biking, and I can go to Go Ape!"
So Becky already knew about the award winning 'high wire forest adventure' in Grizedale Forest… this sounded like a set-up. But, set-up aside, a family adventure weekend with our friends was a great idea.
A few weeks later, in mid-August, we set off in a van stuffed with camping gear, mountain bikes and climbing kit. We'd chosen Great Langdale as the ideal base: we could cycle on bridleways from there to Ambleside and Windermere for Canadian canoeing; Grizedale Forest and Go Ape! was a short drive away, with a walk-and-scramble on Jack's Rake, at the head of the valley, to wrap up the weekend.
Choosing the campsite was simple. We have spent too many nights on the National Trust's Great Langdale site, and were keen to avoid repeating the experience: being close to pubs, accessible and well known, it gets crowded and rowdy. Call me picky, but having to wipe vomit off my tent in the morning, and replace guy lines that were ripped out when drunken idiots tripped over them at 2am, is not the best way to start a Saturday.
A few years ago, we camped at the Bayesbrown Farm site at Chapel Stile, nearer to Ambleside. It was pretty simple: a field (often a bit boggy), with a tap and flush toilet; I can't remember if it had a shower. We warned the Clements that it would be basic, so when we arrived, I didn't recognise the place. Acres had been given over to campers; the shower blocks were immaculate and heated, and the site was busy.
Still, we easily found a level pitch and settled in. Becky, aged 12, and Tom, 15, joined other children playing football while we relaxed with a glass of wine. We'd opted to cook at the site, rather than join the crowds at the nearby pub, so the evening was ours to play with. It was one of those perfect camping moments, with good food and wine, company and chat, and a scarlet sunset over the Langdale Pikes.
Apart from Tom and Sue's airbed springing a leak, the Clements enjoyed their night in a tent. So did Duncan and I: there were no noisy neighbours or midnight revellers. I sound like a real old grump, but people who treat campsites as a cheap base for getting drunk really annoy me. Instead, Bayesbrown seemed to be a site where camping, itself, is the adventure. The novelty of cooking breakfast outdoors, for example, caused great excitement among our neighbours (who had spent hours erecting a tent the night before, then filled the next two hours with their backs to the sunset, playing on their mobile phones…)
But, back to the reason for being here. The first mission for today was mountain biking. We'd chosen a route to Ambleside via Rydal Water, starting from the campsite. With Tom, a keen mountain biker, in the lead, we cruised along quiet roads, puffing uphill away from Chapel Stile and the pretty village of Elterwater. Stopping at the gate onto the Loughrigg Terrace bridleway, Duncan froze: two deer bounced out of the trees and along the road, disappearing in seconds.
The narrow bridleway snaked across the hillside, then dropped to the shore of Rydal Water. Tom strutted his two-wheeled stuff, bunny-hopping over rocks, while the rest of us dabbled our wheels in the lake. It was a gentle glide from here to Ambleside, where we stopped for cakes and coffee at the lakeside. A wedding party boarded the wooden steamer, dogs and children licked ice creams, birds squabbled… it was a glorious Saturday morning.
OPEN-BOAT CANOEING
Next stop was Low Wood Hotel and its watersports centre, a few minutes' ride from Ambleside. The plan was to introduce the Clements to Canadian canoes, although first we had to tear Tom away from a large fibreglass dinosaur lurking on the lawn. Crocodile Dundee, roll over.
Instructor Steve explained the basics of paddling and steering to a wide-eyed and very attentive family. The wind was picking up, and while Canadians are safe and stable, they are also heavy and high-sided, making them tricky to manoeuvre in blustery conditions. Mike and Becky launched in one boat, with Tom and Sue in another. Mike, a builder by trade, grabbed a paddle and set off like a rocket, Becky in the bow and white water churning behind. "It's just like shovelling sand," he said, "but more fun."
One of the joys of canoeing is seeing the land from the water. With the busy A591 hidden behind trees, we felt insulated from the noise and fumes, and enjoyed the views of graceful houses and gardens sweeping down to the water.
While Mike perfected his jay-stroke, Sue and Tom headed for the jetty. In his eagerness to pull the canoe to shore, Tom leapt out too early and disappeared under water. He emerged laughing but was, of course, soaked. Luckily, the nearby YHA at Ambleside has a coin-operated tumble dryer, which saved the day with a hot spin.
Now the team split up. Duncan and Tom had opted for a mountain bike challenge, a tough ride off-road via Hawkshead, Little Langdale and Blea Tarn. Becky, Sue and Mike came with me, via Elterwater's pub, back to the campsite, where we ditched the bikes and headed for Go Ape!
HIGH WIRE FOREST ADVENTURE
After a stop in Coniston to buy the world's best Cumberland sausage, we reached the forest adventure park. We had booked one of the later slots of the day, and the park was busy. The course takes around three hours, including a briefing, practise and assessment. There is a strong emphasis on safety, with careful instruction on using the safety harnesses and pulleys.
The different sectors are graded in difficulty and anything can be bypassed, but visitors are encouraged to try everything. This kind of activity is experiencing a real boom in popularity as people combine the thrill of adrenaline with the novelty of risk acceptance and self-responsibility. There are limits on height (minimum 1.4m), age (minimum ten-years-old) and weight (maximum 130kg), but otherwise it's open to all. The visitors' book showed a remarkable number of people with a fear of heights, who had tackled the course and loved it.
The Clements were apprehensive, but within minutes were swinging through trees, soaring down zip wires, wobbling along logs and scrambling up ladders. The strangest activity was crawling through a slotted wooden barrel swinging high in the trees: "I feel like a hamster in a wheel," muttered Sue, as she squeezed through.
The zip wires, used to exit each activity, were voted the most fun and for Sue and Becky Go Ape! was the highlight of the weekend. For Mike, though, the best was yet to come.
"We're going… where?" Tom asked, as he stared up at the wall of rock. Duncan pointed to a long scratch, a natural fault in the rock face of Pavey Ark. "See that line?" he said. "It's steep and rocky, but it's as safe as walking along a corridor." Tom smiled nervously…
We were walking along the shore of Stickle Tarn, a small lake high above Langdale valley. Sue and Becky had walked with us, taken one look at Pavey Ark and opted to return to the van for a rest. Mike and Tom had continued, getting in some practise on the big boulders in Stickle Ghyll. Once Tom realised how easy it was to grip onto the rock with hands and feet, there was no stopping him.
We climbed the loose rocks and scree to the foot of the long scratch, the start of Jack's Rake. This must be the most popular scramble in the Lake District: a grade one route following a rock trough diagonally up the crag. It's never dangerous or particularly exposed, but there are a couple of places where you need to step out, over thin air, to make the next move. The trick is to be confident and to concentrate.
Tom and Mike went at it like experts. Every time I looked over my shoulder, Tom was there, grinning. At one point he stopped to look down, staring in surprise at Stickle Tarn, now a tiny puddle. That's the thing about scrambling: because you are concentrating, and climbing vertically, the height gain happens almost without effort.
Anyway, they loved it. Before we knew it, we were on the final chunk of rock and walking to the summit. Flopping onto the ground by the cairn, we could see past the green patchwork of the Lake District to the silver water of Morecambe Bay. Suddenly, Mike pointed: a peregrine falcon was buzzing a kestrel, just in front of us. The falcon dived, spiraled, bombed the other bird – it was like watching a Spitfire attack a helicopter.
Back in the valley, we found Becky asleep in the van, wedged against a mountain bike wheel. Camping paraphernalia was stacked around her, and she'd found a sleeping bag for a pillow. She looked tired, but happy: after a weekend of fresh air, exercise and adrenaline, she had surely earned a good, long sleep before school on Monday.
Low Wood Watersports Centre is attached to the Low Wood hotel, on the shore of Windermere near Ambleside. Sit-on kayaks, Canadian canoes, waterskiing, rowboats, plus instruction, are available. Open all year. Tel 015394 39441 Web elh.co.uk/watersports
Go Ape! in Grizedale forest, has easy access for spectators. Minimum age ten, minimum height 1.4m – that's 4ft7in, maximum weight 130kg/20.5 stone. A degree of strength and fitness is required, as you need to climb rope ladders. Tel 0870 458 9189 Web goape.co.uk
Cycling Hire bikes, equipment and guiding from shops in Ambleside (eg Easy Rider, Bike Treks, Ghyllside Cycles etc), Grizedale Forest (Grizedale Mountain Bikes) and Coniston (Summitreks). More information at lakedistrictoutdoors.co.uk
Walking and scrambling Ambleside has lots of outdoor shops. Guiding, especially for scrambling and hill walking, can be arranged. For more information and a list of activity centres or companies, go to lakedistrictoutdoors.co.uk
Read more camping guides here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Radio Pulse Generator In The Key Housing
(Redirected from Keyless Go)
Radio Pulse Generator In The Key Housing Authority
Radio Pulse Generator In The Key Housing Center
Nissan Intelligent Key
A smart key is an electronic access and authorization system that is available either as standard equipment, or as an option in several car designs. It was first developed by Siemens in 1995 and introduced by Mercedes-Benz under the name 'Key-less Go' in 1998 on the W220 S-Class, after the design patent was filed by Daimler-Benz on May 17, 1997.[1]
The key is identified via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in the key housing. Depending on the system, the vehicle is automatically unlocked when a button or sensor on the door handle or trunk release is pressed. To lock/unlock an Audi vehicle with the Advanced Key, the key is identified via proximity sensors in each car door and trunk lid which are matched to a radio pulse generator in the key housing as soon as you are within approximately 5 feet of the vehicle. The vehicle is automatically unlocked as soon as the door handle or trunk is actuated.
How it works[edit]
The smart key allows the driver to keep the key fob pocketed when unlocking, locking and starting the vehicle. The key is identified via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in the key housing. Depending on the system, the vehicle is automatically unlocked when a button or sensor on the door handle or trunk release is pressed. Vehicles with a smart-key system have a mechanical backup, usually in the form of a spare key blade supplied with the vehicle. Some manufacturers hide the backup lock behind a cover for styling.
A push-button ignition switch in place of the immobilizer on a Mitsubishi RVR equipped with the Smart key.
Vehicles with a smart-key system can disengage the immobilizer and activate the ignition without inserting a key in the ignition, provided the driver has the key inside the car. On most vehicles, this is done by pressing a starter button or twisting an ignition switch.
When leaving a vehicle that is equipped with a smart-key system, the vehicle is locked by either pressing a button on a door handle, touching a capacitive area on a door handle, or simply walking away from the vehicle. The method of locking varies across models.
Some vehicles automatically adjust settings based on the smart key used to unlock the car. User preferences such as seat positions, steering wheel position, exterior mirror settings, climate control (e.g. temperature) settings, and stereo presets are popular adjustments. Some models, such as the Ford Escape, even have settings to prevent the vehicle from exceeding a maximum speed if it has been started with a certain key.
Nomenclature[edit]
Bugatti keyless entry remote
A woman shows Honda Odyssey (international) Smart Entry System
Manufacturers use keyless authorization systems under different names:
Acura: Keyless Access System
Audi: Advanced Key
Aston Martin: Keyless Entry and Push Button Start
BMW: Comfort Access or Display Key
Bugatti: Keyless Entry Remote
Cadillac: Adaptive Remote Start & Keyless Access
FIAT-Chrysler: Keyless Enter-N-Go
Ford: Intelligent Access with push-button start
General Motors: Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS)
Honda: Smart Entry System
Hyundai: Proximity Key and smart entry key
Infiniti: Infiniti Intelligent Key with Push-button Ignition
Isuzu: Genius Entry
Jaguar Cars: Smart Key System
Kia Motors: Smart Key System
Lexus: Smart Access System
Lincoln: Intelligent Access System
Mazda: Advanced Keyless Entry & Start System
Mercedes-Benz: Keyless Go integrated into SmartKeys
Mini: Comfort Access
Mitsubishi Motors: FAST Key System
Nissan: Nissan Intelligent Key
Porsche: Porsche Entry & Drive System
Proton: Passive Keyless Entry
Renault: Hands Free Keycard
Riverside Manufacturing LLC: Intelli-Fob
SsangYong Motor: Smart Key System
Subaru: Keyless Smart Entry With Push-Button Start
Suzuki: SmartPass Keyless entry & starting system
Tesla: Model S Key
Toyota: Smart Key System
Volkswagen: Keyless Entry & Keyless Start or KESSY
Volvo: Personal Car Communicator 'PCC' and Keyless Drive or Keyless Drive
Mahindra & Mahindra: Smart Key Module
Insurance standard[edit]
In 2005, the UK motor insurance research expert Thatcham introduced a standard for keyless entry, requiring the device to be inoperable at a distance of more than 10 cm from the vehicle.[2] In an independent test, the Nissan Micra's system was found to be the most secure, while certain BMW and Mercedes keys failed, being theoretically capable of allowing cars to be driven away while their owners were refueling.[3] Despite these security vulnerabilities, auto theft rates have decreased 7 percent between 2009 and 2010, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau credits smart keys for this decrease.[4][5]
SmartKeys[edit]
SmartKeys was developed by Siemens in the mid-1990s and introduced by Mercedes-Benz in 1997 to replace the infrared security system introduced in 1989. Daimler-Benz filed the first patents for SmartKey on February 28, 1997 in German patent offices, with multifunction switchblade key variants following on May 17, 1997.[6][7][8][9] The device entailed a plastic key to be used in place of the traditional metal key. Electronics that control locking systems and the ignitions made it possible to replace the traditional key with a sophisticated computerized 'Key'. It is considered a step up from remote keyless entry. The SmartKey adopts the remote control buttons from keyless entry, and incorporates them into the SmartKey fob.
Once inside a Mercedes-Benz vehicle, the SmartKey fob, unlike keyless entry fobs, is placed in the ignition slot where a starter computer verifies the rolling code. Verified in milliseconds, it can then be turned as a traditional key to start the engine. The device was designed with cooperation of Siemens Automotive and Huf exclusively for Mercedes-Benz, but many luxury manufacturers have implemented similar technology based on the same idea.[citation needed] In addition to the SmartKey, Mercedes-Benz now integrates as an option Keyless Go; this feature allows the driver to keep the SmartKey in their pocket, yet giving them the ability to open the doors, trunk as well as starting the car without ever removing it from their pocket.
The SmartKey's electronics are embedded in a hollow, triangular piece of plastic, wide at the top, narrow at the bottom, squared-off at the tip with a half-inch-long insert piece. The side of the SmartKey also hides a traditional Mercedes-Benz key that can be pulled out from a release at top. The metal key is used for valet purposes such as locking the glovebox and/or trunk before the SmartKey is turned over to a parking attendant. Once locked manually, the trunk cannot be opened with the SmartKey or interior buttons. The key fob utilizes a radio-frequency transponder to communicate with the door locks, but it uses infrared to communicate with the engine immobilizer system. Original SmartKeys had a limited frequency and could have only been used in line-of-sight for safety purposes. The driver can also point the smart key at the front driver side door while pushing and holding the unlock button on the SmartKey and the windows and the sunroof will open in order to ventilate the cabin. Similarly, if the same procedure is completed while holding the lock button, the windows and sunroof will close. In cars equipped with the Active Ventilated Seats, the summer opening feature will activate the seat ventilation in addition to opening the windows and sunroof.
Display Key[edit]
Display Key is a type of smart key developed by BMW that has a small LCD color touchscreen on it. It performs the standard functions that a key fob would normally do (locking, unlocking & keyless start), but because of the screen you can also perform a number of the features from BMW's app. One of which includes commanding your car to self park from the key (if your car has self parking capability). The key is currently available for the 5 series, 7 series, X5, and X7. The key is rechargeable and can last about 3 weeks on standby. It can be charged via the micro usb port on the side or wirelessly on your BMW center console.
Keyless Go[edit]
Keyless Go (also: Keyless Entry / Go; Passive Entry / Go) is Mercedes' term for an automotive technology which allows a driver to lock and unlock a vehicle without using the corresponding SmartKey buttons.[10] Once a driver enters a vehicle with an equipped Keyless Go SmartKey or Keyless Go wallet-size card, they have the ability to start and stop the engine, without inserting the SmartKey. A transponder built within the SmartKey allows the vehicle to identify a driver. An additional safety feature is integrated into the vehicle, making it impossible to lock a SmartKey with Keyless Go inside a vehicle.
Hardware blocks on the Keyless Entry/Go ECU
The system works by having a series of LF (low frequency 125 kHz) transmitting antennas both inside and outside the vehicle. The external antennas are located in the door handles. When the vehicle is triggered, either by pulling the handle or touching the handle, an LF signal is transmitted from the antennas to the key. The key becomes activated if it is sufficiently close and it transmits its ID back to the vehicle via RF (Radio frequency >300 MHz) to a receiver located in the vehicle. If the key has the correct ID, the PASE module unlocks the vehicle.
The hardware blocks of a Keyless Entry / Go Electronic control unit ECU are based on its functionality:
transmitting low-frequency LF signals via the 125 kHz power amplifier block
receiving radio frequency RF signals (> 300 MHz) from the built-in ISM receiver block
encrypting and decrypting all relevant data signals (security)
communicating relevant interface signals with other electronic control units
Inside Outside detection[edit]
The smart key determines if it is inside or outside the vehicle by measuring the strength of the LF fields. In order to start the vehicle, the smart key must be inside the vehicle.
System reaction times[edit]
The mark of a good passive entry system is that the user never hits the 'wall'. This happens when the user pulls the door handle to its full extent before the door is unlocked. The handle has to be released and pulled again to gain access. Good systems have an override feature that allows the doors to be opened more quickly.
Security requirements[edit]
It is important that the vehicle can't be started when the user and therefore the smart key is outside the vehicle. This is especially important at fueling stations where the user is very close to the vehicle. The internal LF field is allowed to overshoot by a maximum of 10 cm to help minimise this risk. Maximum overshoot is usually found on the side windows where there is very little attenuation of the signal.
Relay Station Attack
A second scenario exists under the name 'relay station attack' (RSA). The RSA is based on the idea of reducing the long physical distance between the car and the regular car owner's SmartKey. Two relay stations will be needed for this: The first relay station is located nearby the car and the second is close to the SmartKey. So on first view, the Keyless Entry / Go ECU and the SmartKey could communicate together. A third person at the car could pull the door handle and the door would open. However, in every Keyless Entry / Go system provisions exist to avoid a successful two-way communication via RSA. Some of the most known are:
measuring group delay time to detect illegal high values
measuring third-order intercept point to detect illegal intermodulation products
measuring field strength of the electric field
measuring the response time of 125 kHz LC circuit
using a more complex modulation (i.e. quadrature amplitude modulation) which can't be demodulated and modulated by a simple relay station
Furthermore, Keyless Entry / Go communicates with other Control Units within the same vehicle. Depending on the electric car architecture, the following are some Control Systems that can be enabled or disabled:
ESCL Electric Steering Column Lock
EIS Electronic Ignition Switch
Central door locking system
Engine Control Unit (Motor management system)
BCU Body control unit
Another possibility is using a motion sensor within the key fob.[11][12]
Internal LF field dead spots[edit]
Dead spots are a result of the maximum overshoot requirement from above. The power delivered to the internal LF antennas has to be tuned to provide the best performance i.e. minimum dead spots and maximum average overshoot. Dead spots are usually near the extremities of the vehicle e.g. the rear parcel shelf.
Battery Backup[edit]
If the battery in the smart key becomes depleted, it is necessary for there to be a backup method of opening and starting the vehicle. Opening is achieved by an emergency (fully mechanical) key blade usually hidden in the smart key. On many cars emergency starting is achieved by use of an inductive coupling. The user either has to put the key in a slot or hold it near a special area on the cockpit, where there is an inductive coil hidden behind which transfers energy to a matching coil in the dead key fob using inductive charging.
Slots have proven to be problematic, as they can go wrong and the key becomes locked in and cannot be removed. Another problem with the slot is it can't compensate for a fob battery below certain operating threshold. Most smart key batteries are temperature sensitive causing the fob to become intermittent, fully functional, or inoperative all in the same day.
Special Cases[edit]
A Keyless Entry / Go system should be able to detect and handle most of the following cases:
SmartKey Transponder was forgotten in the rear trunk
More than one SmartKey is present inside the car
SmartKey getting lost during the drive
Smartkey battery low (Limp-Home)
The first Keyless Entry / Go ECU of the MB S-Class car series 1998/99
The system is based on a technology invented by Siemens VDO called PASE: Passive Start and Entry System. It operates in the ISM band of radio frequencies. Keyless Entry / Go was introduced first by Mercedes-Benz in the S-Class car series in 1998.
Today a Keyless Entry / Go system is a state-of-the art technology and still has a lot of potential to optimise. Here are some general trends of the advance (AD) and series development (SD):
SD: reduction of used LF antennas in low-cost compact cars (results in a loss of detection quality)
AD: using electric field antennas instead of magnetic field antennas (cost reduction)
AD: using microwave frequencies (radar) instead of an LF and RF combination (more comfort)
AD: Biometricauthentication would identify the user and not the SmartKey transponder
Effectiveness[edit]
A test by ADAC revealed that 20 car models with Keyless Go could be entered and driven away without the key.[13][14][15][16] In 2014, 6,000 cars (about 17 per day) were stolen using keyless entry in London.[17]
^DPMAregister Designs - Registerauskunft zum Design
^ThatchamArchived 2007-12-11 at the Wayback Machine
^Auto Express: Micra's Top of the Fobs
^ Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything. Perseus Books/Vanguard Press. p. 100. ISBN978-1593157203.
^ 'Vehicle theft post Sixth Consecutive Yearly Decline'. NICB. 2010-09-20.
^ 'KEYLESS-GO®'. Mercedes-Benz USA.
^http://essatech.de/produkty/ - Keyless Defender
^https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/ford-fiesta-focus-theft-proof-keyless-entry-fobs/ - Ford Fiesta and Focus keyless entry fobs are now theft-proof
^ Saarinen, Martin (18 March 2016). 'Tests uncover major security risk to keyless cars'. Auto Express. Retrieved 19 March 2016.
^Keyless-Diebstahl - vom ADAC untersuchte AutosArchived 2016-03-27 at the Wayback MachineADAC, 15 March 2016
^Autos mit Keyless leichter zu klauenADAC
^ADAC demonstrates keyless theft on YouTube
^ Finnerty, Joe (5 February 2015). 'Keyless car crime up as gangs target vans'. Auto Express. Retrieved 19 March 2016.
[https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_garcia.pdf Security Flaws of Remote
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_key&oldid=939098203#Keyless_Go'
Git Generate Ssh Key 4096Steam Cd Key Generator 2012 Free Download No Survey
✔ Fifa 14 Key Generator Download Free Pc
✔ Generate Ssh Key Mac Sourcetree
✔ Aes Key And Iv Generator
✔ Microsoft 2010 Product Key Generator Download


text:
The boy travellers in the Far East, part third : adventures of two youths in a journey to Ceylon and India with descriptions of Borneo, the Philippines Islands and Burmah Page 78
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882, pg 78
80	THE BOY TRAVELLERS IN THE FAR EAST. # t tion of time. The identity of the murderer was established by the earrings of the woman in his stomach " I once had a light of three or four hours with a crocodile that had entered a narrow lagoon connecting with the lake, and seized a horseman who was crossing. We made a strong net of ropes, and stretched it across the entrance of the lagoon to prevent his escape into the lake ; then we lashed two canoes side by side, and with long poles stirred the bottom till he rose to the surface. As he opened his mouth to attack us, we sent a couple of explosive balls down his throat with as many Remington rifles, and another was lodged in his skin under the foreleg, when he turned about to dive. He went down and tried to break through the net, but it was too strong for him, and then it took an hour or more to urge him to show himself again. We fired nearly a dozen balls into him, and at last he caught his head in the net when he was about expiring; we drew him to the shore, and found, on taking his measurement, that he was twenty-seven feet long, and had a girth of eleven feet around the body just behind the forelegs. " So much for the crocodile, but we are not going to hunt him to-day ; we are in pursuit of game that lives on land, and is not amphibious. If a huge captive.


To reduce the amount of fat in your diet, try cooking vegetables go here using water instead of oil. You will find that steamed or boiled vegetables are just as good as friend vegetables. If you are an oil addict, at least replace high-fat butter products with vegetable oil.
When it comes to nutrition, the easiest way to stay healthy is to plan ahead! This means picking out your meals in advance for the week and purchasing all the necessities. That http://antiwrinkleskincarei.com/marine-collagen-cream=pa7919/ way when meal time comes you already have it all planned along with the ingredients needed. This makes it easier to stick to a nutrition regimen without feeling overwhelmed.
What Type Of Health And Fitness Classes Would Match You?