My first major contribution was a follow-up to a brilliant paper led by P. Forscher on the benefits, barriers, and risks of big team science. I had the pleasure of working on this paper, and it profoundly impacted my thinking. osf.io/preprints/ps...
THAT’S AMAZING AND MORE THAN ENOUGH! So I focused on: Helping people push forward on studies they had already started (putting my own study ideas on hold) Reflecting on successes, problems, and potential reform Connecting folks interested in refining big team science
The momentum the Psychological Science Accelerator already had, IMO, was more than enough. Evidence: during my directorship, the community published 5 MASSIVE papers. Another 3 studies are finished and accepted for publication. 2 are accepted in-principle.
When youre already moving at a high speed, you can afford to ride the momentum. I thought this wasnt just practical, but necessary Because when presented with a new tool (e.g. AI, fMRI, big team science), scientists tend to be more excited and earnest than careful and reflective.
I was the community's second director. When I came in, it already had *a ton* of momentum, thanks to the amazing efforts of the founder (C. Chartier) and the board. So, I did something that may prove controversial: I largely pulled my foot off the accelerator.
Today, my term as director of the Psychological Science Accelerator — one of the largest collaborative communities in psychology — ends. Working w/ @psysciacc.bsky.social was very hard work. But it was incredibly meaningful. 🧵on the past 3 years and the future of big team science
'Graduate students need more quantitative methods support', a Comment by Andrea L. Howard (@drandreahoward.bsky.socialgo.nature.com/3uAxNZ4rdcu.be/dyP0y#academicsky#psychology
Want to learn more about project management for psych experiments? Here's my take on it - resources from the webinar this morning! docs.google.com/presentation...
At a time when scientific misconduct is making headlines, the truth is that errors in science are largely brought to light by unpaid volunteers. I wrote about a new program that wants to shake up those incentives and pay sleuths cold, hard cash for finding mistakes. www.chronicle.com/article/want...
At a time when scientific misconduct is making headlines, a new program hopes to encourage the detection of mistakes with cold, hard cash.
Neat paper. Always love seeing researchers grapple with pluralism!