Following Elsevier's decision to raise the APC for NeuroImage to $3,450, all editors (inc. EiCs @fmrib_steve @tobergmann @BirteUta) from NeuroImage and NeuroImage:Reports have resigned, effective immediately. I am joining this action and have also resigned imaging-neuroscience.org/Announcement.p… Elsevier continues to prey on the academic community, claiming huge profits while adding little value to science. But we the academic community hold the power and can withdraw our consent to be exploited at any time. That time is now.

Good morning! An announcement about Registered Reports 🧵

#RegisteredReports @RegReports 10 years ago, almost to the day, we received Elsevier’s approval to launch Registered Reports at the journal Cortex.

Cortex became one of the core founding journals for the initiative, which has now been taken up by over 300 journals and review platforms. /1

A key moment in history as we see publication of the 1st two completed Registered Reports by a Nature journal

Both studies disconfirmed their hypotheses, as @RegReports often do

Congrats to the authors & to editors @KoustaStavroula & @marike_cogneuro
nature.com/articles/s4156… @RegReports @KoustaStavroula @marike_cogneuro See also this fascinating insight into life as a @RegReports editor at @NatureHumBehav by @marike_cogneuro socialsciences.nature.com/users/174171-m…

Marike is v modest but she is a brilliant editor & proof that you don't need to stay in academia to have a tremendous positive impact on science

Okay scientists. I get asked a lot about the Stage 1 review delay for Registered Reports. You're all quite reasonably concerned about waiting 2-4 months to start your research in order to get Stage 1 in-principle acceptance, or "IPA" as I'll call it for the rest of this thread /1 In this thread I want to offer some tips for how you can keep this time as short as possible, based on my editorial experience: RR editor at 6 journals currently, have edited about 150 RRs /2

I see this thread from last year is getting another round of attention. Results of our randomised trial to test the effect of press releases on the news are now in-press with @BMCMedicine so stay tuned! cc @adamsrc86 We’ve just published the next step in our journey to understand the role of press releases in science news. It’s without doubt the most off-the-wall & unexpected research project I’ve ever been involved in.

Our latest foray was a real-world experiment on the news media itself.

A late-night thread on reproducibility and #openscience in cognitive neuroscience, including our upcoming series of (rather punchy) comment pieces at the journal Cortex. Gather round all ye. Here is my editorial introducing the seven commentaries. I’m going to move through each of them here in turn, and stick around to the end of the thread to hear about two new initiatives we’re launching this year in response psyarxiv.com/shryx /1

Delighted to be able to announce, at last, the official launch of our Replications policy at @RoyalSociety Open Science, modelled on @hardsci's Pottery Barn rule for scientific journals blogs.royalsociety.org/publishing/rep… The aim of this initiative is two-fold: 1st to provide a home for methodologically sound replications, regardless of results, for both planned & already-conducted studies. And 2nd, to ensure that journals are held to account for the replicability of the research they publish.

@BrianWansink Hi Brian. I think the claim that you only made “mistakes” is questionable, and in the interests of posterity I’m now going to explain why, using a documented example of our interaction with you. /1 @BrianWansink Back in March 2017, @sTeamTraen noticed strange inconsistencies in a paper you published the previous year in Frontiers in Psychology called “How traumatic violence permanently changes shopping behavior”
steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/03/cornel… /2

Thread on two research transparency initiatives we are launching today at the journal Cortex, where I serve as an editor. This is a big day for us, in preparation for a long time. /1 The initiatives are the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and Badges for Open Practices /2

Whenever I criticize professors I get email from fellow profs admonishing me. Today it was the charge that I was "...attacking the people who have power, rather than diplomatically trying to change their minds".

Dear Profs: This thread is my autoreply & my only reply. /1

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @chrisdc77 view original on Twitter

I find that senior profs fall into 3 categories.

Category A is those who care about reproducibility, agree there is a problem & want to make science more rewarding for the public & the next generation of scientists. @deevybee @MarcusMunafo @siminevazire, to name just a few. /2

Thread alert: Lots of heated discussion going on about this. It’s not the 1st time – this issue comes up repeatedly. I used to be firmly of the “I’m a scientist. Yes” camp, but I changed my views quite profoundly & here’s why. Gather round fellow scientists. 1/x

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @kylejasmin view original on Twitter

Back in 2011 some colleagues of mine had their research completely misrepresented by the Sun, the PA & the Daily Mail. They were appalled & wanted to do something. I had a (tiny) bit of media experience & I was co-opted into helping write a response: theguardian.com/science/blog/2… 2/x