From 01f8d5cd5397fac681a66bc9bf55ff8e50f74fb6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:07:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 01/12] Initial plan From 4578e778d5810f034e3ad1331a2a1aff97d8c36f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:27:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 02/12] Add automated spell-check with codespell Co-authored-by: LukasWallrich <60155545+LukasWallrich@users.noreply.github.com> --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 65 +++++++++++++ .codespellrc | 15 +++ .github/workflows/spell-check.yaml | 56 +++++++++++ scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 268 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .codespell-ignore.txt create mode 100644 .codespellrc create mode 100644 .github/workflows/spell-check.yaml create mode 100755 scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..7db5477ec17 --- /dev/null +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +# Project-specific terms and proper nouns for FORRT +# Add one word per line (case-insensitive by default) + +# Project names and acronyms +FORRT +forrt +OSF +preregistration +CREP +Gilad +Feldman + +# Research/Academic terms +metascience +reprohack +preregistrations +replicability +reproducibility +openess + +# Names and organizations +Kathawalla +Priya +Angelika +Stefan +behavioural +recognised +organised +grey +Hart +Tennant +Strack +Shepard +NWO +nwo + +# Technical terms +hugo +blogdown +netlify +yaml +Github +VSCode +agrc + +# Common acceptable variations +behaviour +honour +colour +favour +centre +practise +organisation +recognise +organise +theses +re-use +re-used +alpha-numeric + +# Legal/formal terms +recuse +recusal + +# Hyphenated words that are acceptable diff --git a/.codespellrc b/.codespellrc new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..3ec34e39375 --- /dev/null +++ b/.codespellrc @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +[codespell] +# Skip these files and directories +skip = .git,*.png,*.jpg,*.jpeg,*.gif,*.svg,*.ico,*.woff,*.woff2,*.ttf,*.eot,*.min.js,*.min.css,themes,node_modules,public,resources,static/admin,*.lock,package-lock.json,.hugo_build.lock,go.sum,*.json,*.css,*.scss,*.toml,content/glossary/german,content/glossary/portuguese,content/glossary/arabic,content/glossary/spanish,content/glossary/french,data,*.pdf + +# Ignore these words (project-specific terms and proper nouns) +ignore-words = .codespell-ignore.txt + +# Check file names as well +check-filenames = + +# Check hidden files +check-hidden = + +# Exclude certain patterns in files +ignore-regex = (https?://|www\.|[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z|a-z]{2,}|) diff --git a/.github/workflows/spell-check.yaml b/.github/workflows/spell-check.yaml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..4556f3ae925 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/workflows/spell-check.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +name: Spell Check + +# ======================= +# Automated Spell Checking +# ======================= +# Purpose: Checks for spelling errors in pull requests using codespell +# Triggers: PR opened, synchronized, or reopened +# Reports: Comments on PR with potential typos and suggestions + +on: + pull_request: + types: [opened, synchronize, reopened] + +permissions: + contents: read + issues: write + pull-requests: write + +jobs: + spell-check: + runs-on: ubuntu-latest + + steps: + - name: Checkout repository + uses: actions/checkout@v4 + + - name: Set up Python + uses: actions/setup-python@v5 + with: + python-version: '3.x' + + - name: Install codespell + run: | + python -m pip install --upgrade pip + pip install codespell + + - name: Run Spell Check Script + id: spell_check + run: | + python scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py + + - name: Find Comment + uses: peter-evans/find-comment@v3 + id: fc + with: + issue-number: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} + comment-author: 'github-actions[bot]' + body-includes: Spell Check Results + + - name: Create or update comment + uses: peter-evans/create-or-update-comment@v4 + with: + comment-id: ${{ steps.fc.outputs.comment-id }} + issue-number: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} + body: ${{ steps.spell_check.outputs.comment }} + edit-mode: replace diff --git a/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py b/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py new file mode 100755 index 00000000000..5bfe8e7967f --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env python3 +""" +Spell-check script for FORRT repository using codespell. +Checks for typos in pull requests and generates a formatted comment. +""" + +import os +import sys +import subprocess +import json +from pathlib import Path + +def run_codespell(): + """Run codespell and capture output.""" + try: + # Run codespell on specific directories to avoid themes and other large dirs + # Focus on content, scripts, and GitHub workflows + paths = ['content', 'scripts', '.github', 'CONTRIBUTING.md', 'README.md'] + + result = subprocess.run( + ['codespell', '--config', '.codespellrc'] + paths, + cwd='/home/runner/work/forrtproject.github.io/forrtproject.github.io', + capture_output=True, + text=True + ) + + return result.stdout, result.returncode + except FileNotFoundError: + print("Error: codespell is not installed.", file=sys.stderr) + sys.exit(1) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error running codespell: {e}", file=sys.stderr) + sys.exit(1) + +def parse_codespell_output(output): + """Parse codespell output into structured format.""" + typos = [] + + if not output.strip(): + return typos + + lines = output.strip().split('\n') + for line in lines: + if ':' in line: + # Format: filename:line: TYPO ==> SUGGESTION + parts = line.split(':', 2) + if len(parts) >= 3: + filepath = parts[0].strip() + line_num = parts[1].strip() + message = parts[2].strip() + + typos.append({ + 'file': filepath, + 'line': line_num, + 'message': message + }) + + return typos + +def format_comment(typos): + """Format typos as a GitHub comment.""" + if not typos: + comment = "## ✅ Spell Check Passed\n\n" + comment += "No spelling issues found in this PR! 🎉" + return comment + + comment = "## 📝 Spell Check Results\n\n" + comment += f"Found {len(typos)} potential spelling issue(s) in this PR:\n\n" + + # Group typos by file + typos_by_file = {} + for typo in typos: + file = typo['file'] + if file not in typos_by_file: + typos_by_file[file] = [] + typos_by_file[file].append(typo) + + # Format output + for file, file_typos in sorted(typos_by_file.items()): + comment += f"### 📄 `{file}`\n\n" + comment += "| Line | Issue |\n" + comment += "|------|-------|\n" + for typo in file_typos: + line = typo['line'] + message = typo['message'].replace('|', '\\|') # Escape pipes for markdown + comment += f"| {line} | {message} |\n" + comment += "\n" + + comment += "---\n\n" + comment += "### ℹ️ How to address these issues:\n\n" + comment += "1. **Fix the typo**: If it's a genuine typo, please correct it.\n" + comment += "2. **Add to whitelist**: If it's a valid word (e.g., a name, technical term), add it to `.codespell-ignore.txt`\n" + comment += "3. **False positive**: If this is a false positive, please report it in the PR comments.\n\n" + comment += "🤖 This check was performed by [codespell](https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell)" + + return comment + +def main(): + """Main function to run spell check and output comment.""" + print("Running spell check...", file=sys.stderr) + + # Run codespell + output, returncode = run_codespell() + + # Parse output + typos = parse_codespell_output(output) + + # Format comment + comment = format_comment(typos) + + # Output comment for GitHub Actions + # Escape special characters for GitHub Actions output + comment_escaped = comment.replace('%', '%25').replace('\n', '%0A').replace('\r', '%0D') + + # Set output using environment file (GitHub Actions recommended method) + github_output = os.environ.get('GITHUB_OUTPUT') + if github_output: + with open(github_output, 'a') as f: + f.write(f"comment< Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:28:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 03/12] Add documentation for spell check script Co-authored-by: LukasWallrich <60155545+LukasWallrich@users.noreply.github.com> --- scripts/spell_check/README.md | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+) create mode 100644 scripts/spell_check/README.md diff --git a/scripts/spell_check/README.md b/scripts/spell_check/README.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..884bf8f4eba --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/spell_check/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +# FORRT Spell Check + +This directory contains the automated spell-checking system for the FORRT repository. + +## Components + +### check_spelling.py +Python script that: +- Runs codespell on the repository +- Parses the results +- Formats them as a GitHub comment for PRs + +### Configuration Files (in repository root) + +#### .codespellrc +Configuration file for codespell that: +- Specifies which files/directories to skip +- Configures checking options +- References the ignore words list + +#### .codespell-ignore.txt +List of words to ignore during spell checking: +- Project-specific terms (FORRT, preregistration, etc.) +- Proper names (authors, organizations) +- Technical terms +- Acceptable spelling variations (British vs American English) + +## Usage + +### Running Locally + +To run spell check locally: + +```bash +# Install codespell +pip install codespell + +# Run the spell check +python scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py +``` + +Or run codespell directly: + +```bash +codespell --config .codespellrc +``` + +### Adding Words to Whitelist + +If codespell flags a word that is correct (e.g., a person's name, technical term, or intentional spelling): + +1. Add the word to `.codespell-ignore.txt` +2. One word per line +3. Add a comment above the word explaining why it's whitelisted (optional but recommended) +4. Commit the change + +Example: +``` +# Author names +Kathawalla +Gilad +``` + +### GitHub Actions Workflow + +The spell check runs automatically on pull requests via the `.github/workflows/spell-check.yaml` workflow. It: + +1. Triggers on PR open, synchronize, or reopen +2. Installs codespell +3. Runs the spell check script +4. Posts/updates a comment on the PR with results + +## False Positives + +If you encounter false positives: + +1. **For legitimate terms**: Add to `.codespell-ignore.txt` +2. **For file types**: Add the extension to the `skip` list in `.codespellrc` +3. **For directories**: Add the directory path to the `skip` list in `.codespellrc` + +## Configuration + +The spell check focuses on: +- Content files (markdown) +- Scripts (Python, shell) +- GitHub workflows +- Documentation files + +It skips: +- Binary files (images, fonts) +- Themes and node_modules +- Non-English translations +- Data files (JSON, PDF) +- Lock files From d475e3cf508eba006a616162a4081742f89ea1b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:31:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 04/12] Address code review feedback on documentation Co-authored-by: LukasWallrich <60155545+LukasWallrich@users.noreply.github.com> --- scripts/spell_check/README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/spell_check/README.md b/scripts/spell_check/README.md index 884bf8f4eba..c8fe44b5fa1 100644 --- a/scripts/spell_check/README.md +++ b/scripts/spell_check/README.md @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ List of words to ignore during spell checking: - Project-specific terms (FORRT, preregistration, etc.) - Proper names (authors, organizations) - Technical terms -- Acceptable spelling variations (British vs American English) +- Acceptable spelling variations (e.g., British English "behaviour", "colour" are acceptable alongside American English variants) ## Usage From a60f7ddd8f6c5084f4bdc5221d9e96a470537aec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 14:50:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 05/12] Remove 'openess' from codespell ignore list Removed 'openess' from the codespell ignore list. --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 7db5477ec17..30df1bf78f8 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ reprohack preregistrations replicability reproducibility -openess # Names and organizations Kathawalla From 9f0f1620edb95d491bd06974863b89ca277b5ad8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:34:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 06/12] Fix spelling errors and update codespell whitelist Co-authored-by: LukasWallrich <60155545+LukasWallrich@users.noreply.github.com> --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ CONTRIBUTING.md | 2 +- .../OS-developing-world.md | 2 +- content/about/partnerships/partnerships.md | 2 +- content/awop/index.md | 2 +- content/coc.md | 2 +- content/contributor-analysis/index.Rmd | 2 +- .../contributor-analysis/network-graph.Rmd | 4 ++-- content/dei/2-intro-text.md | 2 +- content/glossary/english/plan_s.md | 2 +- content/glossary/english/pro.md | 2 +- content/glossary/english/research_protocol.md | 2 +- content/glossary/english/type_i_error.md | 2 +- content/glossary/references/index.md | 4 ++-- content/glossary/vbeta/plan-s.md | 2 +- .../pro-peer-review-openness-initiative.md | 2 +- content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md | 2 +- .../masterstools/index.md | 2 +- content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md | 2 +- .../positive-changes-replication-crisis.md | 2 +- .../fred_data_curators_role/index.md | 2 +- content/reversals/reversals.md | 12 +++++------ content/summaries/summaries.py | 2 +- 23 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 30df1bf78f8..83c8afcec43 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ Strack Shepard NWO nwo +Soler +Yau +Carmel +Loder +Udo +Ned +Ans # Technical terms hugo @@ -56,9 +63,22 @@ theses re-use re-used alpha-numeric +Homogenous +ABl +wont +ublication +commend +ons # Legal/formal terms recuse recusal +# Additional project-specific terms +Didactical +AREN's +ND +Zenodo +OT + # Hyphenated words that are acceptable diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 9b1942d8d7d..7f2cad98942 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ A way to run the project locally without installing Hugo on the host machine is 2. Open `.devcontainer/devcontainer.json` in VSCode. If you are on a Windows host, go to `.devcontainer\dev\devcontainer.json` and uncomment the line `"remoteUser": "root"` before continuing. 3. In the context menu of VSCode (Crl + Shift + P), select `Dev Containers: Open Folder in Container`. Alternatively, a pop-up will appear in the bottom right corner of the window asking if you want to open the folder in a container. Click on `Reopen in Container`. 4. Wait for the container to build. The context of VS Code will change. In the bottom left corner, you will see a green icon with the name of the container (Hugo Dev). -5. Run `hugo server -D`. The container will foward port 1313 to the host machine, so you can access the website at `http://localhost:1313`. +5. Run `hugo server -D`. The container will forward port 1313 to the host machine, so you can access the website at `http://localhost:1313`. ### Development - R-Studio diff --git a/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md b/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md index 5da2bbe9e6d..c52eac67652 100644 --- a/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md +++ b/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Our FORRT community will support this initiative by leveraging and sharing our e ### Why This Project Is Needed --------------------- -Open Science has gained significant traction in developed countries and is endorsed by major organizations such as UNESCO, NASA, White House and other world players. However, the principles of Open Science—inclusing diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility (DEIA)—are not fully realized in developing regions. Researchers in these countries face unique challenges, including limited resources, lack of infrastructure, and systemic barriers that hinder the adoption of Open Science practices. FORRT was established to empower early career scholars, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, by providing curated learning and teaching materials on Open Science. Since its inception, FORRT has advocated for integrating social justice principles in both research and teaching. This collaboration aligns with FORRT’s mission by addressing these challenges head-on, aiming to level the educational landscape and promote equity in scientific research globally. +Open Science has gained significant traction in developed countries and is endorsed by major organizations such as UNESCO, NASA, White House and other world players. However, the principles of Open Science—including diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility (DEIA)—are not fully realized in developing regions. Researchers in these countries face unique challenges, including limited resources, lack of infrastructure, and systemic barriers that hinder the adoption of Open Science practices. FORRT was established to empower early career scholars, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, by providing curated learning and teaching materials on Open Science. Since its inception, FORRT has advocated for integrating social justice principles in both research and teaching. This collaboration aligns with FORRT’s mission by addressing these challenges head-on, aiming to level the educational landscape and promote equity in scientific research globally. This joint initiative with [the Chinese Open Science Network](https://open-sci.cn/) is a step towards realizing FORRT’s vision of an inclusive and equitable Open Science community, reflecting our commitment to accessibility, diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and social justice. [See this page in the COSN's website here](https://opensci-cn.github.io/OS-developing-world/). diff --git a/content/about/partnerships/partnerships.md b/content/about/partnerships/partnerships.md index 1ca092439a0..f6ced91bd8f 100644 --- a/content/about/partnerships/partnerships.md +++ b/content/about/partnerships/partnerships.md @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ classtitle = "text-center"
-The African Reproducibility Network (AREN) logo [The African Reproducibility Network (AREN)](https://africanrn.org/) is a community-led grassroots initiative which seeks to bridge the gaps in open science (OS) across Africa. AREN’s mission is to furnish African researchers with the necessary support and resources through training and workshops tailored to the local context, ensuring they are well-equipped to meet the growing global demand for openness and reproducibility in research. We also seek to establish local networks at universities and research institutes across Africa that will serve as advocay hubs for collaboration and cooperation, providing research communities with the necessary support for adopting and practising OS principles while also ensuring institutions are better prepared to implement OS policies. +The African Reproducibility Network (AREN) logo [The African Reproducibility Network (AREN)](https://africanrn.org/) is a community-led grassroots initiative which seeks to bridge the gaps in open science (OS) across Africa. AREN’s mission is to furnish African researchers with the necessary support and resources through training and workshops tailored to the local context, ensuring they are well-equipped to meet the growing global demand for openness and reproducibility in research. We also seek to establish local networks at universities and research institutes across Africa that will serve as advocacy hubs for collaboration and cooperation, providing research communities with the necessary support for adopting and practising OS principles while also ensuring institutions are better prepared to implement OS policies.
diff --git a/content/awop/index.md b/content/awop/index.md index 644c0b6e6d2..bf939285f5e 100644 --- a/content/awop/index.md +++ b/content/awop/index.md @@ -2,6 +2,6 @@ # FORRT page type = "widget_page" headless = false # Homepage is headless, other widget pages are not. -title = "Academic Wheel of Priviledge (AWoP)" +title = "Academic Wheel of Privilege (AWoP)" # url = "/awop" +++ diff --git a/content/coc.md b/content/coc.md index e5a570687f6..d0b4db40d16 100644 --- a/content/coc.md +++ b/content/coc.md @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Our open community strives to: - **Use preferred pronouns (e.g. she/her/hers, they/their/theirs, he/him/his).** -- **Be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences**: Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. It is important to demonstrate empathy and kindness toward other people. Please keep in mind that viewpoints and opinions must not interfere with, hinder, or restrain our strongly-held community values on social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibilty. +- **Be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences**: Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. It is important to demonstrate empathy and kindness toward other people. Please keep in mind that viewpoints and opinions must not interfere with, hinder, or restrain our strongly-held community values on social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. - **Try to understand why we disagree**: Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively by giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback. Remember that we’re different. Diversity contributes to the strength of our community, which is composed of people from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Don’t forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn’t get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes. diff --git a/content/contributor-analysis/index.Rmd b/content/contributor-analysis/index.Rmd index d638f1e47f6..ab87820d3cf 100644 --- a/content/contributor-analysis/index.Rmd +++ b/content/contributor-analysis/index.Rmd @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ dt <- bind_rows(data_list, .id = "Source_Sheet") dt <- dt %>% select(`Project Name`, everything()) -# Remove PM column as it is unncessary and might cause problems with binding +# Remove PM column as it is unnecessary and might cause problems with binding dt <- dt %>% select(-`Project Managers`) ``` diff --git a/content/contributor-analysis/network-graph.Rmd b/content/contributor-analysis/network-graph.Rmd index bd7a8a32d2c..1ab83d430d8 100644 --- a/content/contributor-analysis/network-graph.Rmd +++ b/content/contributor-analysis/network-graph.Rmd @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ dt <- bind_rows(data_list, .id = "Source_Sheet") dt <- dt %>% select(`Project Name`, everything()) -# Remove PM column as it is unncessary and might cause problems with binding +# Remove PM column as it is unnecessary and might cause problems with binding dt <- dt %>% select(-`Project Managers`) ``` @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ ContributorGroups_nodes <- dt_long %>% colnames(ContributorGroups_nodes) <- c("id", "projects") Contributor_nodes <- left_join(Contributor_nodes_n, ContributorGroups_nodes) -Contributor_nodes$title <- paste0(Contributor_nodes$id,"
", gsub(patter = ",", replacement = "
", x = Contributor_nodes$projects)) +Contributor_nodes$title <- paste0(Contributor_nodes$id,"
", gsub(pattern = ",", replacement = "
", x = Contributor_nodes$projects)) ``` ```{r create-edges} diff --git a/content/dei/2-intro-text.md b/content/dei/2-intro-text.md index 6ccef2bedbb..6763e225c64 100644 --- a/content/dei/2-intro-text.md +++ b/content/dei/2-intro-text.md @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Hence, we at FORRT, have devised ***4 ways*** to be proactive in the outreach to * FORRT's ***Open Office Hours*** - Periodically, and at least once a month, the FORRT community will hold its Open and Reproducible Science *"office hours"* for anyone in the world wishing to learn, adopt, and disseminate open and reproducible science tenets, as well as those with interest or questions about teaching and mentoring these concepts, and/or raising awareness of its pedagogical implications and its associated challenges (e.g., curricular reform, epistemological uncertainty, methods of education). - - Please check the [calendar of meetings](#calendar-mentorship) down below. The first meeting will happen Friday, October 30th, 2020. All necessary information should be available in the Google calender, but also feel free to [email us.](mailto:info@forrt.org) + - Please check the [calendar of meetings](#calendar-mentorship) down below. The first meeting will happen Friday, October 30th, 2020. All necessary information should be available in the Google calendar, but also feel free to [email us.](mailto:info@forrt.org)
diff --git a/content/glossary/english/plan_s.md b/content/glossary/english/plan_s.md index 54c88a895ca..3cc384f520b 100644 --- a/content/glossary/english/plan_s.md +++ b/content/glossary/english/plan_s.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ { "type": "glossary", "title": "Plan S", - "definition": "Plan S is an initiative, launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of research funding organisations, which aims to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access. Participating funders require recipients of research grants to publish their research in compliant Open Access journals or platforms, or make their work openly and immediately available in an Open Access repository, from 2021 onwards. cOAlition S funders have commited to not financially support ‘hybrid’ Open Access publication fees in subscription venues. However, authors can comply with plan S through publishing Open Access in a subscription journal under a “transformative arrangement” as further described in the implementation guidance. The “S” in Plan S stands for shock.", + "definition": "Plan S is an initiative, launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of research funding organisations, which aims to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access. Participating funders require recipients of research grants to publish their research in compliant Open Access journals or platforms, or make their work openly and immediately available in an Open Access repository, from 2021 onwards. cOAlition S funders have committed to not financially support ‘hybrid’ Open Access publication fees in subscription venues. However, authors can comply with plan S through publishing Open Access in a subscription journal under a “transformative arrangement” as further described in the implementation guidance. The “S” in Plan S stands for shock.", "related_terms": [ "Open Access", "DORA", diff --git a/content/glossary/english/pro.md b/content/glossary/english/pro.md index 9bfce8695f8..d2b8958ebda 100644 --- a/content/glossary/english/pro.md +++ b/content/glossary/english/pro.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ { "type": "glossary", "title": "PRO (peer review openness) initiative", - "definition": "The agreement made by several academics that they will not provide a peer review of a manuscript unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, the manuscript authors should ensure the data and materials will be made publically available (or give a justification as to why they are not freely available or shared), provide documentation detailing how to interpret and run any files or code and detail where these files can be located via the manuscript itself.", + "definition": "The agreement made by several academics that they will not provide a peer review of a manuscript unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, the manuscript authors should ensure the data and materials will be made publicly available (or give a justification as to why they are not freely available or shared), provide documentation detailing how to interpret and run any files or code and detail where these files can be located via the manuscript itself.", "related_terms": [ "Non-anonymised peer review", "Open Science", diff --git a/content/glossary/english/research_protocol.md b/content/glossary/english/research_protocol.md index 003bd12986e..bd7830aaaf9 100644 --- a/content/glossary/english/research_protocol.md +++ b/content/glossary/english/research_protocol.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ { "type": "glossary", "title": "Research Protocol", - "definition": "A detailed document prepared before conducting a study, often written as part of ethics and funding applications. The protocol should include information relating to the background, rationale and aims of the study, as well as hypotheses which reflect the researchers’ expectations. The protocol should also provide a “recipe” for conducting the study, including methodological details and clear analysis plans. Best practice guidelines for creating a study protocol should be used for specific methodologies and fields. It is possible to publically share research protocols to attract new collaborators or facilitate efficient collaboration across labs (e.g. [https://www.protocols.io/](https://www.protocols.io/)). In medical and educational fields, protocols are often a separate article type suitable for publication in journals. Where protocol sharing or publication is not common practice, researchers can choose preregistration.", + "definition": "A detailed document prepared before conducting a study, often written as part of ethics and funding applications. The protocol should include information relating to the background, rationale and aims of the study, as well as hypotheses which reflect the researchers’ expectations. The protocol should also provide a “recipe” for conducting the study, including methodological details and clear analysis plans. Best practice guidelines for creating a study protocol should be used for specific methodologies and fields. It is possible to publicly share research protocols to attract new collaborators or facilitate efficient collaboration across labs (e.g. [https://www.protocols.io/](https://www.protocols.io/)). In medical and educational fields, protocols are often a separate article type suitable for publication in journals. Where protocol sharing or publication is not common practice, researchers can choose preregistration.", "related_terms": [ "Many Labs", "Preregistration" diff --git a/content/glossary/english/type_i_error.md b/content/glossary/english/type_i_error.md index 6f419935c2c..91793ad3e2e 100644 --- a/content/glossary/english/type_i_error.md +++ b/content/glossary/english/type_i_error.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ { "type": "glossary", "title": "Type I error", - "definition": "“Incorrect rejection of a null hypothesis” (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1359), i.e. finding evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no effect when the evidence is actually in favouring of retaining the null that there is no effect (For example, a judge imprisoning an innocent person). Concluding that there is a significant effect and rejecting the null hypothesis when your findings actually occured by chance.", + "definition": "“Incorrect rejection of a null hypothesis” (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1359), i.e. finding evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no effect when the evidence is actually in favouring of retaining the null that there is no effect (For example, a judge imprisoning an innocent person). Concluding that there is a significant effect and rejecting the null hypothesis when your findings actually occurred by chance.", "related_terms": [ "Frequentist statistics", "Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST)", diff --git a/content/glossary/references/index.md b/content/glossary/references/index.md index f1106bd69fb..587b4c00ccd 100644 --- a/content/glossary/references/index.md +++ b/content/glossary/references/index.md @@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ We are currently working on a better way to display and cross-link the reference
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2021). Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science. Cognition, 215, 104820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104820
-
Licenses & Standards | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/licenses
+
Licenses & Standards | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/licenses
Lin, D., Crabtree, J., Dillo, I., Downs, R. R., Edmunds, R., Giaretta, D., De Giusti, M., L’Hours, H., Hugo, W., Jenkyns, R., Khodiyar, V., Martone, M. E., Mokrane, M., Navale, V., Petters, J., Sierman, B., Sokolova, D. V., Stockhause, M., & Westbrook, J. (2020). The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Scientific Data, 7(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7
@@ -991,7 +991,7 @@ We are currently working on a better way to display and cross-link the reference
The Open Definition—Open Definition—Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge. (n.d.). Open Knowledge Foundation. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opendefinition.org/
-
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/osd
+
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/osd
The Slow Science Academy. (2010). The Slow Science Manifesto. SLOW-SCIENCE.Org — Bear with Us, While We Think. http://slow-science.org/
diff --git a/content/glossary/vbeta/plan-s.md b/content/glossary/vbeta/plan-s.md index 1c408fa4716..5ad76a0d5da 100644 --- a/content/glossary/vbeta/plan-s.md +++ b/content/glossary/vbeta/plan-s.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "title": "Plan S", - "definition": "Plan S is an initiative, launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of research funding organisations, which aims to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access. Participating funders require recipients of research grants to publish their research in compliant Open Access journals or platforms, or make their work openly and immediately available in an Open Access repository, from 2021 onwards. cOAlition S funders have commited to not financially support ‘hybrid’ Open Access publication fees in subscription venues. However, authors can comply with plan S through publishing Open Access in a subscription journal under a “transformative arrangement” as further described in the implementation guidance. The “S” in Plan S stands for shock.", + "definition": "Plan S is an initiative, launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of research funding organisations, which aims to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access. Participating funders require recipients of research grants to publish their research in compliant Open Access journals or platforms, or make their work openly and immediately available in an Open Access repository, from 2021 onwards. cOAlition S funders have committed to not financially support ‘hybrid’ Open Access publication fees in subscription venues. However, authors can comply with plan S through publishing Open Access in a subscription journal under a “transformative arrangement” as further described in the implementation guidance. The “S” in Plan S stands for shock.", "related_terms": ["Open Access", "DORA", "Repository"], "references": ["https://www.coalition-s.org"], "alt_related_terms": [null], diff --git a/content/glossary/vbeta/pro-peer-review-openness-initiative.md b/content/glossary/vbeta/pro-peer-review-openness-initiative.md index a9dac82d160..0dd53542134 100644 --- a/content/glossary/vbeta/pro-peer-review-openness-initiative.md +++ b/content/glossary/vbeta/pro-peer-review-openness-initiative.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "title": "PRO (peer review openness) initiative", - "definition": "The agreement made by several academics that they will not provide a peer review of a manuscript unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, the manuscript authors should ensure the data and materials will be made publically available (or give a justification as to why they are not freely available or shared), provide documentation detailing how to interpret and run any files or code and detail where these files can be located via the manuscript itself.", + "definition": "The agreement made by several academics that they will not provide a peer review of a manuscript unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, the manuscript authors should ensure the data and materials will be made publicly available (or give a justification as to why they are not freely available or shared), provide documentation detailing how to interpret and run any files or code and detail where these files can be located via the manuscript itself.", "related_terms": ["Non-anonymised peer review", "Open Science", "Open Peer Review", "Transparent peer review"], "references": ["Morey et al. (2016)"], "alt_related_terms": [null], diff --git a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md index e1a21f1dccb..81b4c14e341 100644 --- a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md +++ b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Please consider [giving us your feedback (critical or otherwise) when using thes ### Contribute --------------------- -You can still contribute to the collection of Lesson Plans by adding your ideas in the Google sheet below. Furthemore, if you would like your lesson plans to be included among the several others [in this OSF repository](https://osf.io/th254/), please use the [Lesson Plan's template](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OMyhKBUUceJHvZRJ0lNSclDXBcoYpQQDCn-zJ_2teXI/edit) and contact Madeleine Pownall or Flavio Azevedo at FORRT's slack channel. Or feel free to email [info@forrt.org](mailto:info@forrt.org). +You can still contribute to the collection of Lesson Plans by adding your ideas in the Google sheet below. Furthermore, if you would like your lesson plans to be included among the several others [in this OSF repository](https://osf.io/th254/), please use the [Lesson Plan's template](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OMyhKBUUceJHvZRJ0lNSclDXBcoYpQQDCn-zJ_2teXI/edit) and contact Madeleine Pownall or Flavio Azevedo at FORRT's slack channel. Or feel free to email [info@forrt.org](mailto:info@forrt.org). ### Pedagogical Activities diff --git a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md index a9d0680fe95..11b06f85600 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Jason, Leonard A.; Glantsman, Olya; O'Brien, Jack F.; and Ramian, Kaitlyn N., "I
- +

diff --git a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md index 5c905402e22..bd293e45a36 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ We are developing a lot of resources about neurodiversity in academia. Right now ### What is Neurodiversity? -A lack of diversity, equity and inclusion is bad for scholarship. Systemic barriers (such as hiding articles behind paywalls or geographical restrictions on conferences) prevent potential researchers with less access to resources from taking part in the research process. This limits the breadth of scientific progress, as a small and relatively homogenous group dictates which research questions are asked. Issues of diversity, equity and inclusion also arise within research which focuses on human research. A homogenous sample can lead to results which do not generalize across social groups - or worse, interventions which actively harm certain groups. So far, the majority of diversity, equity and inclusion work in open scholarship has focused on gender, ethnic/racial, and geographical disparities. However, issues linked to disability remain relatively under-discussed. At Team Neurodiversity, we hope to broaden these conversations to include and support the neurodiversity movement. +A lack of diversity, equity and inclusion is bad for scholarship. Systemic barriers (such as hiding articles behind paywalls or geographical restrictions on conferences) prevent potential researchers with less access to resources from taking part in the research process. This limits the breadth of scientific progress, as a small and relatively homogeneous group dictates which research questions are asked. Issues of diversity, equity and inclusion also arise within research which focuses on human research. A homogeneous sample can lead to results which do not generalize across social groups - or worse, interventions which actively harm certain groups. So far, the majority of diversity, equity and inclusion work in open scholarship has focused on gender, ethnic/racial, and geographical disparities. However, issues linked to disability remain relatively under-discussed. At Team Neurodiversity, we hope to broaden these conversations to include and support the neurodiversity movement. Neurodiversity refers to non-pathological variation in the human brain regarding movement, sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other mental functions at a group level (Singer, 2017). The neurological majority are known as neurotypical, while individuals who differ from this majority are referred to as neurodivergent. These differences can be present from birth (e.g. developmental or learning differences), or acquired during one’s life (e.g. due to an accident or medical condition such as a stroke). Neurodivergent individuals may have a diagnostic or identity label attached to their difference (such as autistic, ADHD or a mental health label), but this is not always the case. diff --git a/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md b/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md index 978d4ef1c36..2bc02843ca3 100644 --- a/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md +++ b/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Our educational toolkit is designed to support educators, researchers, and stude * **Prediction Markets:** These have been developed to assess the credibility of research findings, involving both experts and laypeople in predicting the replicability of studies. * **Statistical Assessment Tools:** Tools like p-curve and Z-curve are now used to detect biases in the literature. Additionally, tests like GRIM and SPRITE help identify inconsistencies in individual studies. * **Multiverse Analysis:** This approach involves testing hypotheses using various analytical methods to ensure the robustness of findings, reducing the influence of researchers' degrees of freedom. -* **Cummulative Science:** Adoption of best practices for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including the use of guidelines like PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to enhance transparency and reproducibility. This involves thorough documentation of methodological choices and comprehensive reporting of findings to minimize bias and improve the reliability of conclusions drawn from multiple studies. +* **Cumulative Science:** Adoption of best practices for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including the use of guidelines like PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to enhance transparency and reproducibility. This involves thorough documentation of methodological choices and comprehensive reporting of findings to minimize bias and improve the reliability of conclusions drawn from multiple studies. 3. **Community Changes:** diff --git a/content/replication-hub/fred_data_curators_role/index.md b/content/replication-hub/fred_data_curators_role/index.md index efea007b20a..1c3a3951ff2 100644 --- a/content/replication-hub/fred_data_curators_role/index.md +++ b/content/replication-hub/fred_data_curators_role/index.md @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Find out if these studies meet the definition for replication, that is: Self-ide 1. > Magne, V. (2024). Replication research in the domain of perceived L2 fluency: Approximate and close replications of Kormos and Dénes (2004) and Rossiter (2009). Language Teaching, 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000120](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000120) -2. > Stephenson, Corinne (2024). Trends in U.S. Wage Inequality: Revising the Revisionists. A Replication Study of Autor, Katz, and Kearney (2008). Journal of Comments and Replications in Economics, Vol.3 (2024-4). [https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.34](https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.34) +2. > Stephenson, Corinne (2024). Trends in U.S. Wage Inequality: Revising the Revisionists. A Replication Study of Author, Katz, and Kearney (2008). Journal of Comments and Replications in Economics, Vol.3 (2024-4). [https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.34](https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.34) 3. > Huensch, A. (2024). Clarifying the role of inhibitory control in L2 phonological processing: A preregistered, close replication of Darcy et al.(2016). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-21. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000238](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000238) diff --git a/content/reversals/reversals.md b/content/reversals/reversals.md index 6005231cd3e..8d6b270ab48 100644 --- a/content/reversals/reversals.md +++ b/content/reversals/reversals.md @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Original paper: ‘[Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication](https://archive.org/details/bodypoliticspowe00henl)’, Henley 1977; book/theoretical and anecdotal evidence, n=NA. [citations=2284(GS, May 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Hall et al. 2005](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.131.6.898) [meta-analysis, _k_=211, citations=1103(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. -* Replication effect size: Hall et al.: beliefs (perceptions) about the relation of verticality to nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.25 [-.29, -.21], gazing _r_=.10 [.06, .14], raised brows _r_=-.36 [-.41, -.31], nodding _r_=.12 [.00, .18], self touch _r_=-.09 [-.24, -.06], other touch _r_=.21 [.17, .29], hand/arm gestures _r_=.37 [.25, .49], postural relaxation _r_=-.09 [-.04, .24], body/leg shifting _r_=.10 [-.29, -.21], interpersonal distance _r_=-.34 [-.43, -.25], facing orentation _r_=.10 [-.01, .21], vocal variability _r_=.24 [.16, .32], loudness _r_=.47 [.39, .55], interruptions _r_=.61 [.52, .70], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.78 [-.94, -.62], rate of speech _r_=.09 [.03, .15], pitch _r_=-.10 [-.19, -.01], vocal relaxation _r_=.33 [.18, .48]; actual relations between verticality and nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.03 [-.09, .03], gazing _r_=-.01 [-.09, .07], raised brows _r_=-.06 [-.25, .18], nodding _r_=.03 [-.05, .17], self touch _r_=-.04 [-.10, .10], other touch _r_=-.02 [-.10, .16], hand/arm gestures _r_=.05 [-.06, .10], openess _r_=.13 [.03, .23], postural relaxation _r_=.02 [-.08, .12], interpersonal distance _r_=-.17 [-.24, -.20], loudness _r_=.24 [.16, .32], interruptions _r_=.04 [-.02, .10], overlaps _r_=.06 [-.06, .81], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.06 [-.24, .12], back-channel responses _r_=.03 [-.07, .13], speech errors _r_=.02 [-.10, .14], rate of speach _r_=-.06 [-.15, .03]. +* Replication effect size: Hall et al.: beliefs (perceptions) about the relation of verticality to nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.25 [-.29, -.21], gazing _r_=.10 [.06, .14], raised brows _r_=-.36 [-.41, -.31], nodding _r_=.12 [.00, .18], self touch _r_=-.09 [-.24, -.06], other touch _r_=.21 [.17, .29], hand/arm gestures _r_=.37 [.25, .49], postural relaxation _r_=-.09 [-.04, .24], body/leg shifting _r_=.10 [-.29, -.21], interpersonal distance _r_=-.34 [-.43, -.25], facing orentation _r_=.10 [-.01, .21], vocal variability _r_=.24 [.16, .32], loudness _r_=.47 [.39, .55], interruptions _r_=.61 [.52, .70], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.78 [-.94, -.62], rate of speech _r_=.09 [.03, .15], pitch _r_=-.10 [-.19, -.01], vocal relaxation _r_=.33 [.18, .48]; actual relations between verticality and nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.03 [-.09, .03], gazing _r_=-.01 [-.09, .07], raised brows _r_=-.06 [-.25, .18], nodding _r_=.03 [-.05, .17], self touch _r_=-.04 [-.10, .10], other touch _r_=-.02 [-.10, .16], hand/arm gestures _r_=.05 [-.06, .10], openness _r_=.13 [.03, .23], postural relaxation _r_=.02 [-.08, .12], interpersonal distance _r_=-.17 [-.24, -.20], loudness _r_=.24 [.16, .32], interruptions _r_=.04 [-.02, .10], overlaps _r_=.06 [-.06, .81], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.06 [-.24, .12], back-channel responses _r_=.03 [-.07, .13], speech errors _r_=.02 [-.10, .14], rate of speech _r_=-.06 [-.15, .03]. {{< /spoiler >}} * **Personal cognitive dissonance - free-choice paradigm**. Personal cognitive dissonance, from the cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), suggests that an inconsistency between two cognitions (e.g., an attitude and a past behaviour) creates an unpleasant psychological state (i.e., personal dissonance) that the individual is motivated to reduce (e.g., by changing one of the elements to fit the other). This personal cognitive dissonance has been studied in the literature through different paradigms, including the following three main ones: free-choice, induced-compliance and induced-hypocrisy paradigm. The mere act of choosing equally desirable options can arouse dissonance in the individual, because choosing option A implies the rejection of option B (in other words, choosing option A means accepting its advantages but also its disadvantages, but also accepting to deprive oneself of the advantages of option B). In order to reduce dissonance, subjects will increase the perceived gap between options (i.e., spreading of alternatives) by overestimating the chosen option and/or underestimating the rejected option. ​ @@ -1527,7 +1527,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Status: replicated * Original paper: '[Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments](https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121)', Dunning & Kruger 1999. This contains claims (1), (2), and (5) but no hint of (3) or (4) [n=334 undergrads, citations = 8376 (GS, September, 2022)]. * Critiques: [Gignac 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300271), [n=929,citations = 53 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Nuhfer 2016](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy) and [Nuhfer 2017](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy), [n=1154, citations = 34 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Luu 2015](https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger); [Greenberg 2018](https://www.facebook.com/spencer.greenberg/posts/10104093568422862), n=534; [Yarkoni 2010](https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/), [Jansen 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0) [2 studies, n=2000 each study, citations= 26 (GS, October2022)], [Muller 2020](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ejn.14935) [n= 56, citations= 20 (GS, October 2022)] -* Original effect size: not reported. Study 1 on humor (n= 15): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 2.58 [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -0.55 [calculated]. Study 2 on logical reasoning ( n= 45): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 5.44 (percieved logical reasoning ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.48 (test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.12 [calculated], _d_= -0.79 (percieved test performance) [calculated]. Study 3 on grammar (n= 84): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (percieved bottom quartile) participants _d_= 3.42 (percieved ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.94 (percieved test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.18 (percieved ability) [calculated], _d_= -1.27 (perceived test performance) [calculated]. +* Original effect size: not reported. Study 1 on humor (n= 15): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 2.58 [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -0.55 [calculated]. Study 2 on logical reasoning ( n= 45): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 5.44 (perceived logical reasoning ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.48 (test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.12 [calculated], _d_= -0.79 (perceived test performance) [calculated]. Study 3 on grammar (n= 84): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (perceived bottom quartile) participants _d_= 3.42 (perceived ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.94 (perceived test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.18 (perceived ability) [calculated], _d_= -1.27 (perceived test performance) [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Gignac 2020 (for IQ): when using statistical analysis as in Dunning & Kruger 1999 _η2_ = 0.20, but running two less-confounded tests, _r_= −0.05/d= -0.1 [[calculated](https://www.escal.site/)] between P and errors , and _r_= 0.02/_d_= 0.04 [[calculated](https://www.escal.site/)] for a quadratic relationship between self-described performance and actual performance. [Jansen 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0) (for grammar and logical reasoning): not reported (Bayesian models support the existence of the effect in the data and replicate claim 1). [Muller 2020](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejn.14935) (for recognition memory): the difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 4.73 [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -0.88 [calculated]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1859,7 +1859,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Original paper: ‘[Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology](https://archive.org/details/memorycontributi00ebbiuoft/page/80/mode/2up?view=theater)’, Ebbinghaus 1964; series of single-case studies, n=1. [citations=6103 (GS, September, 2022)]. * Critiques: [Cepeda et al. 2006](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.132.3.354), meta-analysis [n= 184 articles, citations=1894 (GS, September 2022)]. [Janiszewski et al. 2003](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/30/1/138/1801740?login=false), meta-analysis [n= 97 verbal learning studies, citations= 373 (GS, September 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. -* Replication effect size: Cepeda et al.: Cohen’s _d_ for the difference in the accuracy between massed and spaced learning trials in verbal recall tasks= 0.567 (calculated). Janiszewski et al.: _ηp2_= 0.093 (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=49.23,_p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)) for a linear relationship between the number of lags between learning events and the accuracy of recall; _ηp2_= 0.051 for the log relationship (calculated fomr the reported _F_(1, 478)=25.69, _p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)). +* Replication effect size: Cepeda et al.: Cohen’s _d_ for the difference in the accuracy between massed and spaced learning trials in verbal recall tasks= 0.567 (calculated). Janiszewski et al.: _ηp2_= 0.093 (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=49.23,_p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)) for a linear relationship between the number of lags between learning events and the accuracy of recall; _ηp2_= 0.051 for the log relationship (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=25.69, _p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)). {{< /spoiler >}} * **False memories - eyewitness testimony**. A phenomenon of recalling a real event that differs from what actually happened or an event that never occurred. @@ -2274,7 +2274,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoire](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930441000238)s’, Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; between-subjects design, n=104. [citations=5037 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Bruyneel et al. 2013 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0432-1)[Exp 1: n=35, Exp 2: n=38, Exp 3: n=25, citations=83 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721413480364) [review, citations=137 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger et al. 2010](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6) [Exp 1: n=62, Exp 2: n=72, citations=160 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Bruyneel et al. 2013 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0432-1)[Exp 1: n=35, Exp 2: n=38, Exp 3: n=25, citations=83 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721413480364) [review, citations=137 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger et al. 2010](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6) [Exp 1: n=62, Exp 2: n=72, citations=160 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.375 (calculated by using[ this calculator](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/)). * Replication effect size: Bruyneel et al.: Across three experiments, positive affect consistently failed to exert any impact on selective attention, Exp 1: _ηp2 _= 0.04, Exp 2: _ηp2 _= 0.001, Exp 3: _ηp2 _= 0.01 (null effects). Huntsinger: Rather than having fixed effects on the scope of attention, the impact of positive and negative affect is surprisingly flexible. Huntsinger et al.: Positive affect empowers whatever focus is momentarily dominant, Exp 1: _d_= 0.58, Exp 2: _d_= 0.71. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2285,7 +2285,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Original paper: ‘[Interactions between cognition and emotion during response inhibition’,](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024109) Pessoa et al. 2012; within-subjects design, n=36. [citations=245 (GS, March 2023)]. * Critiques: [Pandey and Gupta 2022](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5) [n=54, citations=3 (GS, March 2023)]. [Williams et al. 2020 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02699931.2020.1793303)[Study 1: n=40, Study 2: n=40, Study 3: n=42 (only younger adults sample), citations=12 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _η2_= 0.17, _d_= 0.44 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.33 (happy vs neutral) (Calculated using[ this](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/) calculator). -* Replication effect size: [Pandey and Gupta: ](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5)Angry faces as stop signal impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces,[ _d_ = 0.35](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6). Williams et al.[: ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6)Fearful faces impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces, Study 1: _d_= 0.03 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_ = 0.08 (fearful vs happy), Study 2: _d_= 0.11 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.15 (fearful vs happy), Study 3: _d_= 0.56 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.58 (fearful vs happy). +* Replication effect size: [Pandey and Gupta: ](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5)Angry faces as stop signal impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces,[ _d_ = 0.35](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6). Williams et al.[: ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6)Fearful faces impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces, Study 1: _d_= 0.03 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_ = 0.08 (fearful vs happy), Study 2: _d_= 0.11 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.15 (fearful vs happy), Study 3: _d_= 0.56 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.58 (fearful vs happy). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3782,7 +3782,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003347295801685)’, Anderson et al. 1995; experimental design, 3 cue conditions, n = 3. [citations = 250 (GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Anderson et al. 1996](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0376635795000747) [n = 3, citations = 188 (GS, June 2023)]. [Emery et al. 1997](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=17e1ccd8923068932dcb51e26ba79c7b45858bbd) [n =2, citations = 354 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Anderson et al. 1996](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0376635795000747) [n = 3, citations = 188 (GS, June 2023)]. [Emery et al. 1997](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=17e1ccd8923068932dcb51e26ba79c7b45858bbd) [n =2, citations = 354 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Anderson et al.: not reported. Emery et al.: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} diff --git a/content/summaries/summaries.py b/content/summaries/summaries.py index 5ddb9897037..34cd2e06fa1 100755 --- a/content/summaries/summaries.py +++ b/content/summaries/summaries.py @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ d["summary_{0}".format(i)].update(interest) # else: # d["summary_{0}".format(i)].append(x.content) - elif x == item: # breking the loop when encoutering a new summary + elif x == item: # breking the loop when encountering a new summary # print('passing because', x==item, x, item) break del d['summary_0'] From 05fd1edc3500023095c3c5937af70fbdee6b75eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:35:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 07/12] Fix additional vbeta typos and expand whitelist Co-authored-by: LukasWallrich <60155545+LukasWallrich@users.noreply.github.com> --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 4 ++++ content/glossary/vbeta/references/index.md | 4 ++-- content/glossary/vbeta/research-protocol.md | 2 +- content/glossary/vbeta/type-i-error.md | 2 +- 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 83c8afcec43..a5305752f5c 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -69,6 +69,10 @@ wont ublication commend ons +tru +Vizualization +ist +sie # Legal/formal terms recuse diff --git a/content/glossary/vbeta/references/index.md b/content/glossary/vbeta/references/index.md index 5368c1d8d96..624eb1f26ea 100644 --- a/content/glossary/vbeta/references/index.md +++ b/content/glossary/vbeta/references/index.md @@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ We are currently working on a better way to display and cross-link the reference
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2021). Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science. Cognition, 215, 104820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104820
-
Licenses & Standards | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/licenses
+
Licenses & Standards | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/licenses
Lin, D., Crabtree, J., Dillo, I., Downs, R. R., Edmunds, R., Giaretta, D., De Giusti, M., L’Hours, H., Hugo, W., Jenkyns, R., Khodiyar, V., Martone, M. E., Mokrane, M., Navale, V., Petters, J., Sierman, B., Sokolova, D. V., Stockhause, M., & Westbrook, J. (2020). The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Scientific Data, 7(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7
@@ -991,7 +991,7 @@ We are currently working on a better way to display and cross-link the reference
The Open Definition—Open Definition—Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge. (n.d.). Open Knowledge Foundation. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opendefinition.org/
-
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/osd
+
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 9 July 2021, from https://opensource.org/osd
The Slow Science Academy. (2010). The Slow Science Manifesto. SLOW-SCIENCE.Org — Bear with Us, While We Think. http://slow-science.org/
diff --git a/content/glossary/vbeta/research-protocol.md b/content/glossary/vbeta/research-protocol.md index 8165e33ea64..f889ccc42a3 100644 --- a/content/glossary/vbeta/research-protocol.md +++ b/content/glossary/vbeta/research-protocol.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "title": "Research Protocol", - "definition": "A detailed document prepared before conducting a study, often written as part of ethics and funding applications. The protocol should include information relating to the background, rationale and aims of the study, as well as hypotheses which reflect the researchers’ expectations. The protocol should also provide a “recipe” for conducting the study, including methodological details and clear analysis plans. Best practice guidelines for creating a study protocol should be used for specific methodologies and fields. It is possible to publically share research protocols to attract new collaborators or facilitate efficient collaboration across labs (e.g. https://www.protocols.io/). In medical and educational fields, protocols are often a separate article type suitable for publication in journals. Where protocol sharing or publication is not common practice, researchers can choose preregistration.", + "definition": "A detailed document prepared before conducting a study, often written as part of ethics and funding applications. The protocol should include information relating to the background, rationale and aims of the study, as well as hypotheses which reflect the researchers’ expectations. The protocol should also provide a “recipe” for conducting the study, including methodological details and clear analysis plans. Best practice guidelines for creating a study protocol should be used for specific methodologies and fields. It is possible to publicly share research protocols to attract new collaborators or facilitate efficient collaboration across labs (e.g. https://www.protocols.io/). In medical and educational fields, protocols are often a separate article type suitable for publication in journals. Where protocol sharing or publication is not common practice, researchers can choose preregistration.", "related_terms": ["Many Labs", "Preregistration"], "references": ["BMJ (2015)", "Nosek et al. (2018)"], "alt_related_terms": [null], diff --git a/content/glossary/vbeta/type-i-error.md b/content/glossary/vbeta/type-i-error.md index 2cd5e9f7f7c..43988d07a9b 100644 --- a/content/glossary/vbeta/type-i-error.md +++ b/content/glossary/vbeta/type-i-error.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "title": "Type I error", - "definition": "“Incorrect rejection of a null hypothesis” (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1359), i.e. finding evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no effect when the evidence is actually in favouring of retaining the null that there is no effect (For example, a judge imprisoning an innocent person). Concluding that there is a significant effect and rejecting the null hypothesis when your findings actually occured by chance.", + "definition": "“Incorrect rejection of a null hypothesis” (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1359), i.e. finding evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no effect when the evidence is actually in favouring of retaining the null that there is no effect (For example, a judge imprisoning an innocent person). Concluding that there is a significant effect and rejecting the null hypothesis when your findings actually occurred by chance.", "related_terms": ["Frequentist statistics", "Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST)", "Null Result", "P value", "Questionable Research Practices or Questionable Reporting Practices (QRPs)", "Reproducibility crisis (aka Replicability or replication crisis)", "Scientific integrity", "Statistical power", "True positive result", "Type II error"], "references": ["Simmons et al., (2011)"], "alt_related_terms": [null], From 511c723df6caa3763b34d58035d6132bb3bae661 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riva Quiroga Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 21:07:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 08/12] add word to whitelist --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index a5305752f5c..85bb0ce4ce4 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ tru Vizualization ist sie +homogenous # Legal/formal terms recuse From 94c711617a26097e8d6f4ead79228edc7d044a98 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riva Quiroga Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 21:25:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 09/12] organize whitelist alphabetically --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 84 +++++++++++------------- content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 85bb0ce4ce4..62d18136b94 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -2,88 +2,84 @@ # Add one word per line (case-insensitive by default) # Project names and acronyms -FORRT +CREP forrt +FORRT OSF -preregistration -CREP -Gilad -Feldman # Research/Academic terms metascience -reprohack +preregistration preregistrations replicability reproducibility +reprohack # Names and organizations -Kathawalla -Priya Angelika -Stefan -behavioural -recognised -organised -grey +Ans +Carmel Hart -Tennant -Strack -Shepard +Kathawalla +Loder +Ned NWO nwo +Priya +recognised +Shepard Soler -Yau -Carmel -Loder +Stefan +Strack +Tennant Udo -Ned -Ans +Yau # Technical terms -hugo +agrc blogdown -netlify -yaml Github +hugo +netlify VSCode -agrc +yaml # Common acceptable variations behaviour -honour +behavioural +centre colour +commend favour -centre -practise +grey +homogenous +Homogenous +honour +ist +ons organisation -recognise organise -theses +organised +practise +recognise re-use re-used -alpha-numeric -Homogenous -ABl -wont -ublication -commend -ons -tru -Vizualization -ist sie -homogenous +theses +tru # Legal/formal terms -recuse recusal +recuse # Additional project-specific terms -Didactical AREN's +Didactical ND -Zenodo OT +Zenodo # Hyphenated words that are acceptable +alpha-numeric +re-use +re-used diff --git a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md index bf73565352f..1d7201f1347 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ We are developing a lot of resources about neurodiversity in academia. Right now ### What is Neurodiversity? -A lack of diversity, equity and inclusion is bad for scholarship. Systemic barriers (such as hiding articles behind paywalls or geographical restrictions on conferences) prevent potential researchers with less access to resources from taking part in the research process. This limits the breadth of scientific progress, as a small and relatively homogeneous group dictates which research questions are asked. Issues of diversity, equity and inclusion also arise within research which focuses on human research. A homogeneous sample can lead to results which do not generalize across social groups - or worse, interventions which actively harm certain groups. So far, the majority of diversity, equity and inclusion work in open scholarship has focused on gender, ethnic/racial, and geographical disparities. However, issues linked to disability remain relatively under-discussed. At Team Neurodiversity, we hope to broaden these conversations to include and support the neurodiversity movement. +A lack of diversity, equity and inclusion is bad for scholarship. Systemic barriers (such as hiding articles behind paywalls or geographical restrictions on conferences) prevent potential researchers with less access to resources from taking part in the research process. This limits the breadth of scientific progress, as a small and relatively homogenous group dictates which research questions are asked. Issues of diversity, equity and inclusion also arise within research which focuses on human research. A homogenous sample can lead to results which do not generalize across social groups - or worse, interventions which actively harm certain groups. So far, the majority of diversity, equity and inclusion work in open scholarship has focused on gender, ethnic/racial, and geographical disparities. However, issues linked to disability remain relatively under-discussed. At Team Neurodiversity, we hope to broaden these conversations to include and support the neurodiversity movement. Neurodiversity refers to non-pathological variation in the human brain regarding movement, sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other mental functions at a group level (Singer, 2017). The neurological majority are known as neurotypical, while individuals who differ from this majority are referred to as neurodivergent. These differences can be present from birth (e.g. developmental or learning differences), or acquired during one’s life (e.g. due to an accident or medical condition such as a stroke). Neurodivergent individuals may have a diagnostic or identity label attached to their difference (such as autistic, ADHD or a mental health label), but this is not always the case. From 397dad11423f17fffb18066ba71029764f16d70b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riva Quiroga Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 21:31:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/12] add word to whitelist --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 62d18136b94..213072ca94c 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ VSCode yaml # Common acceptable variations +ABl behaviour behavioural centre @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ re-used sie theses tru +visualisation # Legal/formal terms recusal From 931041a7f1889832b91096ac8ea947337371fa91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riva Quiroga Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 22:18:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 11/12] fix typos detected, words to white list + update script --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 9 ++++++++- .../fotis-mystakopoulos-phd-student/_index.md | 2 +- content/glossary/english/zenodo.md | 2 +- .../positive-changes-replication-crisis.md | 2 +- scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py | 14 +++++++++++++- 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 213072ca94c..2531ce5fe3f 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ FORRT OSF # Research/Academic terms +aer metascience preregistration preregistrations @@ -18,16 +19,21 @@ reprohack # Names and organizations Angelika Ans +Buss Carmel Hart Kathawalla +Loades Loder +Nam Ned NWO nwo Priya recognised Shepard +Sherif +Shepperd Soler Stefan Strack @@ -35,7 +41,8 @@ Tennant Udo Yau -# Technical terms +# Technical or code related terms +aCount agrc blogdown Github diff --git a/content/authors/fotis-mystakopoulos-phd-student/_index.md b/content/authors/fotis-mystakopoulos-phd-student/_index.md index 2372297dc36..1411292e298 100644 --- a/content/authors/fotis-mystakopoulos-phd-student/_index.md +++ b/content/authors/fotis-mystakopoulos-phd-student/_index.md @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ social: Fotis Mystakopoulos is a professional actively engaged in advancing Open Science. His career trajectory reflects the evolution of information science, from its traditional roots in library services to its modern role in shaping research policy and data infrastructure. With a background in Library and Information Science, he has developed expertise in key areas of scholarly communication, including Responsible Research Assessment, Open Access, Open Science Training, and Research Data Management. Beyond his formal roles, he is actively engaged in community building, supporting initiatives that connect researchers and professionals around shared values and practices of openness and advocating for cultural change in academia that aligns with the ethos of Open Science. -Currently, alongside his professional duties, he is pursuing a PhD at the University of West Attica, examining the evolution of academic libraries, and theire services within the expanding global landscape of Open Science. +Currently, alongside his professional duties, he is pursuing a PhD at the University of West Attica, examining the evolution of academic libraries, and their services within the expanding global landscape of Open Science. diff --git a/content/glossary/english/zenodo.md b/content/glossary/english/zenodo.md index a541d018e70..a4648e4029a 100644 --- a/content/glossary/english/zenodo.md +++ b/content/glossary/english/zenodo.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ "Arslan, R.", "Forscher, P.", "Scheel, A.", - "& Lakens, D. (2020, May 11). *Red Team Challenge.* [http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/05/red-team-challenge.html](http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/05/red-team-challenge.html) Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, … National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (p. 25303). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303 Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). *Quasi-Experimentation.* Rand McNally. Coproduction Collective (2021). *Our approach.* [https://www.coproductioncollective.co.uk/what-is-co-production/our-approach](https://www.coproductioncollective.co.uk/what-is-co-production/our-approach) Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. *Academy of management review, 36*(1), 12-32. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486](https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486) Cornell University (2020). *Measuring your research impact: i10 index.* Cornell University Library. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/impact/author-impact-10 Corti, L., Van den Eynden, V., Bishop, L., & Woollard, M. (2019). *Managing and sharing research data: a guide to good practice.* Sage. Cowan, N., Belletier, C., Doherty, J. M., Jaroslawska, A. J., Rhodes, S., Forsberg, A., ... & Logie, R. H. (2020). How do scientific views change? Notes from an extended adversarial collaboration. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15*(4), 1011-1025. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906415](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906415) Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine. *University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989* (8), 139–168. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. P*sychological Bulletin, 52*(4), 281–302. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0040957) Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*, 52(7), 558–569. [https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097](https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097) Crowdsourcing Week. (2021, April 29). *What is Crowdsourcing?* [https://crowdsourcingweek.com/what-is-crowdsourcing/](https://crowdsourcingweek.com/what-is-crowdsourcing/) Crutzen, R., Ygram Peters, G. J., & Mondschein, C. (2019). Why and how we should care about the General Data Protection Regulation. *Psychology & health*, *34*(11), 1347-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1606222 Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A., Parsons, S., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 227(4), 237–248. [https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387](https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387) Curry, S. (2012) *Sick of impact factors.* \\[blogpost\\] [http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/](http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/) d’Espagnat, B. (2008). Is science cumulative? A physicist viewpoint. In *Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison* (pp. 145-151). Springer, Dordrecht. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6279-7\\_10](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6279-7_10) Davies, G. M., & Gray, A. (2015). Don’t let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). *Ecology and Evolution, 5*(22), 5295–5304. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1782](https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1782) Del Giudice, M., & Gangestad, S. W. (2021). A traveler’s guide to the multiverse: Promises, pitfalls, and a framework for the evaluation of analytic decisions. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4*(1), 2515245920954925\\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920954925](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920954925) Der Kiureghian, A., & Ditlevsen, O. (2009). Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?. *Structural Safety, 31*(2), 105-112. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020) DeVellis, R. F. (2017). *Scale development: Theory and applications* (4th ed.). Sage. Devito, N., & Goldacre, B. (2019). Publication bias. Catalogue Of Bias [https://catalogofbias.org/biases/publication-bias/](https://catalogofbias.org/biases/publication-bias/) Dickersin, K., & Min, Y. (1993). Publication Bias: The problem that wont go away. *Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 703*(1), 135-148. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x) Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6*(3), 274-290.https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406920 Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. *Frontiers in psychology, 5*, 781\\. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 Dienes, Z. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. *Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72*, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.003 Doll, R., & Hill, A. B. (1954). The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits", + "& Lakens, D. (2020, May 11). *Red Team Challenge.* [http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/05/red-team-challenge.html](http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/05/red-team-challenge.html) Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, … National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (p. 25303). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303 Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). *Quasi-Experimentation.* Rand McNally. Coproduction Collective (2021). *Our approach.* [https://www.coproductioncollective.co.uk/what-is-co-production/our-approach](https://www.coproductioncollective.co.uk/what-is-co-production/our-approach) Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. *Academy of management review, 36*(1), 12-32. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486](https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486) Cornell University (2020). *Measuring your research impact: i10 index.* Cornell University Library. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/impact/author-impact-10 Corti, L., Van den Eynden, V., Bishop, L., & Woollard, M. (2019). *Managing and sharing research data: a guide to good practice.* Sage. Cowan, N., Belletier, C., Doherty, J. M., Jaroslawska, A. J., Rhodes, S., Forsberg, A., ... & Logie, R. H. (2020). How do scientific views change? Notes from an extended adversarial collaboration. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15*(4), 1011-1025. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906415](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906415) Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine. *University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989* (8), 139–168. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. P*sychological Bulletin, 52*(4), 281–302. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0040957) Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*, 52(7), 558–569. [https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097](https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097) Crowdsourcing Week. (2021, April 29). *What is Crowdsourcing?* [https://crowdsourcingweek.com/what-is-crowdsourcing/](https://crowdsourcingweek.com/what-is-crowdsourcing/) Crutzen, R., Ygram Peters, G. J., & Mondschein, C. (2019). Why and how we should care about the General Data Protection Regulation. *Psychology & health*, *34*(11), 1347-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1606222 Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A., Parsons, S., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 227(4), 237–248. [https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387](https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387) Curry, S. (2012) *Sick of impact factors.* \\[blogpost\\] [http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/](http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/) d’Espagnat, B. (2008). Is science cumulative? A physicist viewpoint. In *Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison* (pp. 145-151). Springer, Dordrecht. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6279-7\\_10](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6279-7_10) Davies, G. M., & Gray, A. (2015). Don’t let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). *Ecology and Evolution, 5*(22), 5295–5304. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1782](https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1782) Del Giudice, M., & Gangestad, S. W. (2021). A traveler’s guide to the multiverse: Promises, pitfalls, and a framework for the evaluation of analytic decisions. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4*(1), 2515245920954925\\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920954925](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920954925) Der Kiureghian, A., & Ditlevsen, O. (2009). Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?. *Structural Safety, 31*(2), 105-112. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020) DeVellis, R. F. (2017). *Scale development: Theory and applications* (4th ed.). Sage. Devito, N., & Goldacre, B. (2019). Publication bias. Catalogue Of Bias [https://catalogofbias.org/biases/publication-bias/](https://catalogofbias.org/biases/publication-bias/) Dickersin, K., & Min, Y. (1993). Publication Bias: The problem that won't go away. *Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 703*(1), 135-148. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x) Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6*(3), 274-290.https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406920 Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. *Frontiers in psychology, 5*, 781\\. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 Dienes, Z. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. *Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72*, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.003 Doll, R., & Hill, A. B. (1954). The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits", "a preliminary report. *British Medical Journal, 1* (4877), 1451–1455. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.4877.1451 Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. E*ducation Research and Perspectives, 38*(1), 105-123. Du Bois, W.E.B. (1968). *The souls of black folk", "essays and sketches.* Chicago, A.G. McClurg, 1903\\. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. *Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95*, 89–98. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529](https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529) Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. *Biometrics, 56*, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x. Eagly, A. H., & Riger, S. (2014). Feminism and psychology: Critiques of methods and epistemology. *American Psychologist, 69*(7), 685–702. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037372](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037372) Easterbrook, S. M. (2014). Open code for open science? *Nature Geoscience, 7,* 779-781. [https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2283](https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2283) Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67,* 68–82. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012) Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. L*earning Disability Quarterly, 33*(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103 Ellemers, N. (2021). Science as collaborative knowledge generation. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 60* (1), 1-28.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12430 Eley, A. R. (2012). *Becoming a successful early career researcher.* Routledge. [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/934369360](http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/934369360) f Elliott, K. C., & Resnik, D. B. (2019). Making open science work for science and society. *Environmental Health Perspectives, 127*(7). [https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808](https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808) Esterling, K., Brady, D., & Schwitzgebel, E. (2021, January 27). *The Necessity of Construct and External Validity for Generalized Causal Claims.* [https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2s8w5](https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2s8w5) European Commission (2021, January 17th). *Responsible research & innovation.* Horizon 2020\\. [https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation](https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation) F. (2019, December 13). *Introducing a Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT).* https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bnh7p Fanelli, D. (2010). Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. *PLOS ONE. 5* (4), e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 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](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114) Farrow, R. (2017). Open education and critical pedagogy. *Learning, Media and Technology*, *42*(2), 130-146. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991](https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991) Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G\\*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. B*ehavior Research Methods, 39*, 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G\\*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. *Behavior Research Methods, 41*, 1149-1160. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149) Ferson, S., Joslyn, C. A., Helton, J. C., Oberkampf, W. L., & Sentz, K. (2004). Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity. *Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85*(1-3), 355-369. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.023](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.023) Fiedler K., Kutzner F., Krueger J. I.. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: Problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on *Psychological Science, 7*(6), 661-669. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1745691612462587. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social *Psychological and Personality Science, 7*(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150 Filipe, A., Renedo, A., & Marston, C. (2017). The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. *PLoS biology, 15*(5), e2001403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403 Fillon, A.A., Feldman, G., Yeung, S. K., Protzko, J., Elsherif, M. M., Xiao, Q., Nanakdewa, K. & Brick, C. (2021). *Correlational Meta-Analysis Registered Report Template.* \\[Manuscript in preparation\\]. Findley, M. G., Jensen, N. M., Malesky, E. J., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2016). Can results-free review reduce publication bias? The results and implications of a pilot study. *Comparative Political Studies, 49*(13), 1667–1703. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016655539](https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016655539) Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Eds.). (2008). *Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences.* John Wiley & Sons. Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3*(4), 456-465. [https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2515245920952393](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2515245920952393) Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Leekam, S., Milton, D., Parr, J. R., & Pellicano, E. (2019). Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation. *Autism*, *23*(4), 943–953 FORRT. (2021). *Welcome to FORRT.* Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training. https://forrt.org Foster, E. D., & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open science framework (OSF). *Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105*(2), 203\\. https://doi.org/ 10.5195/jmla.2017.88 Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: \tUnlocking the file drawer. *Science, 345*(6203), 1502-1505. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484) Frank, M.C., Bergelson, E., Bergmann, C., Cristia, A., Floccia, C., Gervain, J., Hamlin, J.K., Hannon, E.E., Kline, M., Levelt, C., Lew-Williams, C., Nazzi, T., Panneton, R., Rabagliati, H., Soderstrom, M., Sullivan, J., Waxman, S. and Yurovsky, D. (2017). A Collaborative Approach to Infant Research: Promoting Reproducibility, Best Practices, and Theory-Building. *Infancy, 22,* 421-435. [https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12182](https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12182) Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. *Research Policy, 43*(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005 Fraser, H., Bush, M., Wintle, B., Mody, F., Smith, E., Hanea, A., ... & Fidler, F. (2021). *Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with repliCATS* (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science). Free Our Knowledge. (n.d.). *About*. Free Our Knowledge. https://freeourknowledge.org/about/. Frith, U. (2020). Fast lane to slow science. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24*(1), 1-2.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.007 Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: rethinking the way we measure. *Serials Review, 39*(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.003 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. *Department of Statistics, Columbia University, 348\\.* http://www.stat.columbia.edu/\\~gelman/research/unpublished/p\\_hacking.pdf 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1745691614551642 Gentleman, R. (2005). Reproducible Research: A Bioinformatics Case Study. *Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 4*, 1034\\. https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1034 German Research Foundation (2019). Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice. Code of Conduct. [http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602) Gilroy, P. (1993). *The black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness*. New York: Harvard University Press. Giner-Sorolla, R., Aberson, C. L., Bostyn, D. H., Carpenter, T., Conrique, B. G., Lewis, N. A., & Soderberg, C. (2019). Power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size \\[Preprint\\]. https://osf.io/jnmya/ Ginsparg, P. (1997). Winners and losers in the global research village, *The Serials Librarian, 30*(3-4), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v30n03\\_13 Ginsparg, P. (2001). Creating a global knowledge network. In *Second Joint ICSU Press-UNESCO Expert Conference on Electronic Publishing in Scienc*e (pp. 19-23). Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of management review, 15(4), 584-602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 Glass, D. J., & Hall, N. (2008). A brief history of the hypothesis. *Cell, 134*(3), 378-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.07.033 Goertzen, M.J. (2017). *Introduction to Quantitative Research and Data.* Library Technology Reports. 53(4), 12–18. Gollwitzer, M., Abele-Brehm, A., Fiebach, C., Ramthun, R., Scheel, A. M., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Steinberg, U. (2020, September 10). Data Management and Data Sharing in Psychological Science: Revision of the DGPs Recommendations. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/24ncs Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). What does research reproducibility mean? *Science Translational Medicine, 8*(341), 341ps12-341ps12. [https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027](https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027) Goodman, S. W., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2019). Gender Representation and Strategies for Panel Diversity: Lessons from the APSA Annual Meeting. *PS: Political Science & Politics*, *52*(4), 669-676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519000908 Gorgolewski, K., Auer, T., Calhoun, V. et al. (2016). The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments. S*cientific Data, 3,* 160044\\. [https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.44](https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.44) Graham, I. D., McCutcheon, C., & Kothari, A. (2019). Exploring the frontiers of research co-production: the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network concept papers. *Health Research Policy and Systems, 17*, 88\\. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0501-7](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0501-7) GRN · German Reproducibility Network. (n.d.). *A German Reproducibility Network.* Retrieved 5 June 2021, from https://reproducibilitynetwork.de/ Grossmann, A., & Brembs, B. (2021). Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. *F1000Research, 10*(20), 20\\. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.1 Grzanka, P. R. (2020). From buzzword to critical psychology: An invitation to take intersectionality seriously. *Women & Therapy, 43*(3-4), 244-261. Guest, O. \\[@o\\_guest\\]. (2017, June 5). *Thanks\\! Hopefully this thread & many other similar discussions & blogs will help make it less Bropen Science and more Open Science. \\*hides\\ \\[Tweet\\]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/o\\_guest/status/871675631062458368 Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2020). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. *Perspectives on Psychological Science.* https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585 Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. *Learned Publishing, 25*(4), 259-264. doi:10.1087/20120404 Hackett, R., & Kelly, S. (2020). Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills. *Biology Open, 9*(10), bio056556. [https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.056556](https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.056556) Hardwicke, T. E., Jameel, L., Jones, M., Walczak, E. J., & Weinberg, L. M. (2014). Only human: Scientists, systems, and suspect statistics. *Opticon1826, 16,* 25\\. DOI:10.5334/OPT.CH Hardwicke, T. E., Bohn, M., MacDonald, K., Hembacher, E., Nuijten, M. B., Peloquin, B. N., ... & Frank, M. C. (2020). Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: an observational study. *Royal Society Open Science, 8*(1), 201494\\. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201494 Hart, D. D., & Silka, L. (2020). Rebuilding the Ivory Tower: A Bottom-Up Experiment in Aligning Research with Societal Needs. *Issues in Science and Technology,* 79-85. https://issues.org/aligning-research-with-societal-needs/ Hartgerink, C. H., Wicherts, J. M., & Van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2017). Too good to be false: Nonsignificant results revisited. *Collabra: Psychology, 3*(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.71 Haven, T. L., & van Grootel, L. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. *Accountability in Research, 26*(3), 229–244. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147](https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147) Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. *Psychological Assessment, 7*(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238 Health Research Board (n.d.) *Declaration on Research Assessment.* Available from: [https://www.hrb.ie/funding/funding-schemes/before-you-apply/how-we-assess-applications/declaration-on-research-assessment/](https://www.hrb.ie/funding/funding-schemes/before-you-apply/how-we-assess-applications/declaration-on-research-assessment/) Healy, K. (2018). *Data visualization: A practical introduction.* Princeton University Press. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In *Trust and communication in a digitized world* (S. 143–159). Springer. Henrich, J. (2020). T*he weirdest people in the world: How the west became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous.* Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. *Behavioral and brain sciences, 33*(2-3), 61-83.[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X) Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016). *Semantometrics Towards Full text-based Research Evaluation.* [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.04180.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.04180.pdf) Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A. (Eds). (2019). *Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.* 2nd Edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Himmelstein, D. S., Rubinetti, V., Slochower, D. R., Hu, D., Malladi, V. S., Greene, C. S., & Gitter, A. (2019). Open collaborative writing with Manubot. *PLOS Computational Biology, 15*(6), e1007128. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007128](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007128) Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102*(46), 16569-16572. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102) Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. *Teaching exceptional children, 35*(2), 8-17. [https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/providing-new-access-general-curriculum/docview/201139970/se-2?accountid=8630](https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/providing-new-access-general-curriculum/docview/201139970/se-2?accountid=8630) Hoekstra, R., Kiers, H., & Johnson, A. (2012). Are assumptions of well-known statistical techniques checked, and why (not)?. *Frontiers in Psychology, 3*(137), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00137 Hoijtink, H., Mulder, J., van Lissa, C., & Gu, X. (2019). A tutorial on testing hypotheses using the Bayes factor. *Psychological Methods, 24*(5), 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000201 Holcombe, A. O. (2019). Contributorship, not authorship: Use CRediT to indicate who did what. *Publications, 7*(3), 48\\. [https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048](https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048) Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Aust, F., & Aczel, B. (2020). Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing. *Plos one, 15*(12), e0244611. Homepage. (n.d.). *Open Science MOOC.* Retrieved 5 June 2021, from https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M. Bishop, D. V. M. Nichols, T. E., & Wagenmekers, 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 Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. *Public understanding of science, 28*(7), 759-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097 Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. *The evidence Forum*, 34-37. Retrieved from: [https://www.evidera.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Whats-in-a-Name-Systematic-and-Non-Systematic-Literature-Reviews-and-Why-the-Distinction-Matters.pdf](https://www.evidera.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Whats-in-a-Name-Systematic-and-Non-Systematic-Literature-Reviews-and-Why-the-Distinction-Matters.pdf) Hüffmeier, J., Mazei, J., & Schultze, T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66*, 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009 Hultsch, D. F., MacDonald, S. W., & Dixon, R. A. (2002). Variability in reaction time performance of younger and older adults. *The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57*(2), P101-P115. [https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.2.P101](https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.2.P101) Hurlbert, S. H. (1984). Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments. *Ecological Monographs, 54*(2), 187–211. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661](https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661) Ikeda, A., Xu, H., Fuji, N., Zhu, S., & Yamada, Y. (2019). Questionable research practices following pre-registration. *Japanese Psychological Review, 62*, 281–295. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors \\[ICMJE\\]. (2019)*. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, eduting, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.* http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf ISO. (1993). *Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measuremen*t. 1st ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. *PLoS medicine, 2*(8), e124.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Ioannidis, J. P., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. *PLoS Biology, 13*(10), e1002264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 JabRef Development Team (2021). *JabRef \\- An open-source, cross-platform citation and reference management software*. https://www.jabref.org Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social Identity Map: A Reflexivity Tool for Practicing Explicit Positionality in Critical Qualitative Research. I*nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18*, 1609406919870075\\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075](https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075) Jafar, A. J. N. (2018). What is positionality and should it be expressed in quantitative studies? *Emergency Medicine Journal, 35*(5), 323–324. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-207158 James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. *Environmental evidence, 5*(1), 1-13. [https://doi.org/](https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.056556)[10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6](https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6) Jannot, A. S., Agoritsas, T., Gayet-Ageron, A., & Perneger, T. V. (2013). Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J*ournal of clinical epidemiology, 66*(3), 296-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015. JASP Team (2020). *JASP* (Version 0.14.1)\\[Computer software\\] 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](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953) Jones, A., Dr, Duckworth, J., & Christiansen, P. (2020, June 29). May I have your attention, please? Methodological and Analytical Flexibility in the Addiction Stroop. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ws8xp Joseph, T. D., & Hirshfield, L. E. (2011). ‘Why don't you get somebody new to do it?’Race and cultural taxation in the academy. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34*(1), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2010.496489 Kalliamvakou, E., Gousios, G., Blincoe, K., Singer, L., German, D. M., & Damian, D. (2014). The promises and perils of mining github. In *Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories* (pp. 92-101). Kathawalla, U., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2020). Easing into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors*. Collabra: Psychology.* [https://psyarxiv.com/vzjdp](https://psyarxiv.com/vzjdp) Kelley, T. L. (1927). *Interpretation of educational measurements*. New York: Macmillan. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. *Personality and social psychology review, 2*(3), 196-217. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203\\_4](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4) Kerr, N. L., Ao, X., Hogg, M. A., & Zhang, J. (2018). Addressing replicability concerns via adversarial collaboration: Discovering hidden moderators of the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78*, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.001 Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L. S., ... & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. *PLoS biology, 14*(5), e1002456.[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456) Kienzler, H., & Fontanesi, C. (2017). Learning through inquiry: A global health hackathon. *Teaching in Higher Education, 22*(2), 129-142. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1221805](https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1221805) Kiernan, C. (1999). Participation in research by people with learning disability: Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.1999.tb00084.x King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. *PS: Political Science & Politics, 28*(3), 444–452. [https://doi.org/10.2307/420301](https://doi.org/10.2307/420301) Kitzes, J., Turek, D., Deniz, F. (2017). *The practice of reproducible research: Case studies and lessons from the data-intensive sciences.* University of California Press. 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. S*ocial Psychology, 45*, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 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](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225) Kleinberg, B., Mozes, M., van der Toolen, Y., & verschuere, B. (2017, June 3). NETANOS \\- Named entity-based Text Anonymization for Open Science. Retrieved from [https://osf.io/w9nhb/](https://osf.io/w9nhb/) Knoth, P., & Herrmannova, D. (2014). Towards semantometrics: A new semantic similarity based measure for assessing a research publication’s contribution. *D-Lib Magazine, 20*(11), 8\\. [https://doi.org/10.1045/november14-knoth](https://doi.org/10.1045/november14-knoth) Knowledge, F. O. (2020, December 3). Preregistration Pledge. Free Our Knowledge. https://freeourknowledge.org/2020-12-03-preregistration-pledge/ Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7*(6), 608-614 .https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462586 Kreuter, F. (Ed.). (2013). *Improving Surveys with Paradata.* doi:10.1002/9781118596869 Kruschke, J. K. (2015). *Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan* (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Kuhn, T. (1962). *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.* University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226458083. Kukull, W.A. & Ganguli, M. (2012). Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit. *Neurology, 78*(23), 1886-1891. [https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f812](https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f812) Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 44*(7), 701–710. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023) Lakens, D. (2020). Pandemic researchers — recruit your own best critics. *Nature, 581*, 121\\. Lakens, D. (2021a, January 4). Sample Size Justification. [https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9d3yf](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9d3yf) Lakens, D. (2021b). The practical alternative to the p-value is the correctly used p-value. Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1*(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963 Lakens, D., McLatchie, N., Isager, P. M., Scheel, A. M., & Dienes, Z. (2020). Improving inferences about null effects with Bayes factors and equivalence tests. *The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75*(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby065 Laine, H. (2017) Afraid of scooping – Case study on researcher strategies against fear of scooping in the context of open science. *Data Science Journal, 16*(29), 1–14. [https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-029](https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-029) Largent, E. A., & Snodgrass, R. T. (2016). Blind peer review by academic journals. In C. T. Robertson and A. S. Kesselheim (Eds.) *Blinding as a solution to bias: Strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law*, (pp. 75-95). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802460-7.00005-X Lazic, S. E. (2019). *Genuine replication and pseudoreplication: What’s the difference?* BMJ Open Science. [https://blogs.bmj.com/openscience/2019/09/16/genuine-replication-and-pseudoreplication-whats-the-difference/](https://blogs.bmj.com/openscience/2019/09/16/genuine-replication-and-pseudoreplication-whats-the-difference/) Leavy, P. (2017). *Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches.* The Guilford Press. Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2010). BIZARRE chimpanzees do not represent “the chimpanzee”. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(*2-3), 100-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000166 LeBel, E. P., Vanpaemel, W., Cheung, I., & Campbell, L. (2017). A brief guide to evaluate replications. *Meta-Psychology, 3*. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2018.843 LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. A*dvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1*(3), 389-402. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489) Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S. T. J., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Maddox, K. B., Pickett, C., Remedios, J. D., … Wilkins, C. L. (2021, January 11). The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive. [https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gdzue](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gdzue) Lee, R.M. (1993). *Doing research on sensitive topics.* London: Sage. Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. *Qualitative psychology, 4*(1), 2\\. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082 Lewandowsky, S., & Bishop, D. (2016). Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage science. *Nature News, 529*(7587), 459\\. [https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a](https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a) LibGuides. (n.d.). *Measuring your research impact: i10-Index*. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/impact/author-impact-10. Lieberman, E. (2020). Research Cycles. In C. Elman, J. Gerring, & J. Mahoney (Eds.), *The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science* (Strategies for Social Inquiry, pp. 42-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org10.1017/9781108762519.003](https://doi.org10.1017/9781108762519.003) Lind, F., Gruber, M., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017). Content analysis by the crowd: Assessing the usability of crowdsourcing for coding latent constructs. *Communication Methods and Measures, 11*(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1317338 Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in Psychological Science \\[Editorial\\]. *Psychological Science, 26*(12), 1827-1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615616374 Lindsay, D. S. (2020). Seven steps toward transparency and replicability in psychological science. *Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne., 61*(4), 310–317. [https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000222](https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000222) Liu, Y. et al. (2020). Replication markets: Results, lessons, challenges and opportunities in AI replication. arXiv:2005.04543 Lu, J., Qiu, Y., & Deng, A. (2018). A note on Type S/M errors in hypothesis testing. *British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72*(1), 1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12132](https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12132) Lüdtke, O., Ulitzsch, E., & Robitzsch, A. (2020). *A Comparison of Penalized Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo Techniques for Estimating Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models with Small Sample Sizes* \\[Preprint\\]. PsyArXiv. [https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u3qag](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u3qag) Lutz, M. (2001). *Programming python.* O'Reilly Media, Inc. Lyon, L. (2016) Transparency: The Emerging Third Dimension of Open Science and Open Data. *LIBER Quarterly, 25*(4), 153-171. [http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10113](http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10113) Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Chen, S. H. A., & Lüdecke, D. (2019). Indices of Effect Existence and Significance in the Bayesian Framework. Retrieved from 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767 Marwick, B., Boettiger, C., & Mullen, L. (2018). Packaging data analytical work reproducibly using R (and friends). *The American Statistician, 72*(1), 80-88. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375986](https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375986) McElreath, R. (2020). *Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan* (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis, CRC Press. McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., and Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(*11), 2557-2560. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115) Medin, D. L. (2012). Rigor without rigor mortis: The APS Board discusses research integrity. *APS Observer, 25* (5-9), 27-28. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/scientific-rigor Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. P*sychological Science, 12*(4), 269-275. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350) Mertens, G., & Krypotos, A. M. (2019). Preregistration of analyses of preexisting data. *Psychologica Belgica, 59*(1), 338\\. Merton, R.K. (1938). Science and the social order. *Philosophy of Science, 5*(3), 321–337 https://doi.org/10.1086/286513 Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. *Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1*, 115–126. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375008-013](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375008-013) Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. *Science, 159* (3810), 56–63. https:/doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. *Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 14*(4), 5-8. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x) Michener W.K. (2015). Ten simple rules for creating a good data management plan. *PLoS Computational Biology, 11*(10), e1004525. https:/doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004525 Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. *PLoS Biology, 18*(7), e3000737. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737) Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. *PLoS Medicine, 6*(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. *PLOS Biology, 16*(3), e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 Moshontz, H., Campbell, L., Ebersole, C. R., IJzerman, H., Urry, H. L., Forscher, P. S., ... & Chartier, C. R. (2018). The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1*(4), 501-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607 Monroe, K. R. (2018). The rush to transparency: DA-RT and the potential dangers for qualitative research. *Perspectives on Politics, 16*(1), 141–148. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271700336X](https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271700336X) Moretti, M. (2020, August 25). *Beyond Open-washing: Are Narratives the Future of Open Data Portals?* Medium. https://medium.com/nightingale/beyond-open-washing-are-stories-and-narratives-the-future-of-open-data-portals-93228d8882f3 Morgan, C. (1998). The DOI (Digital Object Identifier). *Serials, 11*(1), pp.47–51. [http://doi.org/10.1629/1147](http://doi.org/10.1629/1147) Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. *BMC medical research methodology, 18*(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. *Psychological Science, 31*, 678-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "Policy and Global Affairs", diff --git a/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md b/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md index 2bc02843ca3..6a4dbb9025b 100644 --- a/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md +++ b/content/positive-changes-replication-crisis/positive-changes-replication-crisis.md @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Our educational toolkit is designed to support educators, researchers, and stude
-![Vizualization - AI generated](Viz_FORRT.webp) +![Visualization - AI generated](Viz_FORRT.webp)
diff --git a/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py b/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py index 5bfe8e7967f..bf830f28f71 100755 --- a/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py +++ b/scripts/spell_check/check_spelling.py @@ -17,9 +17,21 @@ def run_codespell(): # Focus on content, scripts, and GitHub workflows paths = ['content', 'scripts', '.github', 'CONTRIBUTING.md', 'README.md'] + # Use repo root - GitHub Actions path or repo root directory + repo_root = os.environ.get('GITHUB_WORKSPACE') + if not repo_root: + # Find repo root by looking for .git directory + script_dir = Path(__file__).parent + repo_root = script_dir + while repo_root.parent != repo_root: + if (repo_root / '.git').exists(): + break + repo_root = repo_root.parent + repo_root = str(repo_root) + result = subprocess.run( ['codespell', '--config', '.codespellrc'] + paths, - cwd='/home/runner/work/forrtproject.github.io/forrtproject.github.io', + cwd=repo_root, capture_output=True, text=True ) From a67493e365f31d390932b389cea1c22060e2eb31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riva Quiroga Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 22:44:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 12/12] update whitelist --- .codespell-ignore.txt | 14 +++++++++----- content/about/steering-committee/index.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/.codespell-ignore.txt b/.codespell-ignore.txt index 2531ce5fe3f..afbba2085da 100644 --- a/.codespell-ignore.txt +++ b/.codespell-ignore.txt @@ -52,7 +52,6 @@ VSCode yaml # Common acceptable variations -ABl behaviour behavioural centre @@ -63,8 +62,6 @@ grey homogenous Homogenous honour -ist -ons organisation organise organised @@ -72,9 +69,7 @@ practise recognise re-use re-used -sie theses -tru visualisation # Legal/formal terms @@ -83,6 +78,7 @@ recuse # Additional project-specific terms AREN's +AREN’s Didactical ND OT @@ -92,3 +88,11 @@ Zenodo alpha-numeric re-use re-used + +# Other words/parts of words that the spell checker is incorrectly flagging +ABl +ist +ons +sie +tru +ublication diff --git a/content/about/steering-committee/index.md b/content/about/steering-committee/index.md index dceea2c9e3d..e645bb05f6b 100644 --- a/content/about/steering-committee/index.md +++ b/content/about/steering-committee/index.md @@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ In FORRT, she has been involved in co-leading Team Citational Politics and is ve
Fotis Mystakopoulos is a professional actively engaged in advancing Open Science. His career trajectory reflects the evolution of information science, from its traditional roots in library services to its modern role in shaping research policy and data infrastructure. With a background in Library and Information Science, he has developed expertise in key areas of scholarly communication, including Responsible Research Assessment, Open Access, Open Science Training, and Research Data Management. Beyond his formal roles, he is actively engaged in community building, supporting initiatives that connect researchers and professionals around shared values and practices of openness and advocating for cultural change in academia that aligns with the ethos of Open Science. -Currently, alongside his professional duties, he is pursuing a PhD at the University of West Attica, examining the evolution of academic libraries, and theire services within the expanding global landscape of Open Science. +Currently, alongside his professional duties, he is pursuing a PhD at the University of West Attica, examining the evolution of academic libraries, and their services within the expanding global landscape of Open Science.