ReproducibiliTea

About ReproducibiliTea

Join us at the ReproducibiliTea journal club for an informal discussion about how we can improve transparency, reproducibility and openness in research – with tea (and other refreshments)!

We welcome colleagues and research students from any discipline, regardless of experience or expertise.

We meet on the third Thursday of each month from 12.00 - 13.00 in the Philip Robinson Library Committee room (unless indicated otherwise.) Participants not able to attend in person are welcome to join us via Teams.

The programme of events and articles for discussion is set out below. You're welcome to just drop in to any of these meetings, but if you want to join online or stay up-to-date with these and other events, please join us on Teams or on our mailing list.

Programme for 2023/24

Date	Paper
21/09/23	Bishop, DVM. (2018). Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432-438. DOI: 10.1177/2515245918776632. (Accepted manuscript)
19/10/23	Allen, C, Mehler, DMA (2019) Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology 17(5): e3000246. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
16/11/23	Kowalczyk, OS. et al. (2022) What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide. BMC Research Notes 15, 116. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-05999-0
15/02/24	Hagger, MS (2022) Developing an open science ‘mindset’, Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine, 10:1, 1-21, DOI: 10.1080/21642850.2021.2012474
21/03/24	Mirko Gabelica, M et al. (2022) Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 150, 33-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
18/04/24	Lakens, D (2023) Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards. Nature 613, 9, DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-04504-8
16/05/24	Schwab, S et al. (2022) Ten simple rules for good research practice. PLoS Computational Biology 18(6): e1010139. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010139
20/06/24	Bring a paper from your discipline for a roundtable discussion of how open research practices were applied and what we can learn from it.

Previous events

Date	Paper
20/10/22	Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
17/11/22	Wagenmakers , E.-J., Dutilh, G., & Sarafoglou, A. (2018). The Creativity-Verification Cycle in Psychological Science: New Methods to Combat Old Idols. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618771357
15/12/22	Klein, Richard A., et al. (2018) Many labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across sample and setting. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 1(4), 443-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
Postponed due to UCU strike action	Wilson G, Bryan J, Cranston K, Kitzes J, Nederbragt L, et al. (2017) Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLOS Computational Biology 13(6), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
20/04/23	Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, B. (2018, August 1). Making Replication Mainstream. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4tg9c
18/05/23	Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016, 5:632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Postponed due to UCU strike action	Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2018, November 19). Hidden invalidity among fifteen commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7rbfp
Moved to 2024	Bishop, DVM. (2018). Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632. (Accepted manuscript)