774
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Here I outline some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems. First, the motivation behind questionable research practices is examined (the desire to get ahead or, at least, not fall behind). Next, behavior modification strategies are discussed, pointing out that reward works better than punishment. Humans are utility seekers and the implementation of current change initiatives is hindered by high initial buy-in costs and insufficient expected utility. Open science tools interested in improving science should team up, to increase utility while lowering the cost and risk associated with engagement. The best way to realign individual and group motives will probably be to create one, centralized, easy to use, platform, with a profile, a feed of targeted science stories based upon previous system interaction, a sophisticated (public) discussion section, and impact metrics which use the associated data. These measures encourage high quality review and other prosocial activities while inhibiting self-serving behavior. Some advantages of centrally digitizing communications are outlined, including ways the data could be used to improve the peer review process. Most generally, it seems that decisions about change design and implementation should be theory and data driven.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale.

            The Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS), initially a pool of 18 items, three reflecting each of the six core elements of addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse), was constructed and administered to 423 students together with several other standardized self-report scales (Addictive Tendencies Scale, Online Sociability Scale, Facebook Attitude Scale, NEO-FFI, BIS/BAS scales, and Sleep questions). That item within each of the six addiction elements with the highest corrected item-total correlation was retained in the final scale. The factor structure of the scale was good (RMSEA = .046, CFI = .99) and coefficient alpha was .83. The 3-week test-retest reliability coefficient was .82. The scores converged with scores for other scales of Facebook activity. Also, they were positively related to Neuroticism and Extraversion, and negatively related to Conscientiousness. High scores on the new scale were associated with delayed bedtimes and rising times.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction

              L Sherman (1993)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Comput Neurosci
                Front Comput Neurosci
                Front. Comput. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5188
                19 August 2014
                2014
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Diana Deca, Technical University of Munich, Germany

                Reviewed by: Daoyun Ji, Baylor College of Medicine, USA; Dwight Kravitz, National Institutes of Health, USA

                *Correspondence: Brett T. Buttliere, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, P2.206 Waraandelaan 2, Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands e-mail: brettbuttliere@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.

                Article
                10.3389/fncom.2014.00082
                4137661
                3437c12f-7e22-41d0-8ffc-bdf6c0c1e3d4
                Copyright © 2014 Buttliere.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 72, Pages: 5, Words: 4832
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Perspective Article

                Neurosciences
                open science,publication process,scientific communication,choice design
                Neurosciences
                open science, publication process, scientific communication, choice design

                Comments

                Comment on this article