<aside> <img src="/icons/redirect_blue.svg" alt="/icons/redirect_blue.svg" width="40px" />

Post-meeting Resources 📚

📃 Slides:

SLC_8 - Protocol Sharing - Brad .pdf

🎦 Zoom Recording

🧠 AI Summary

</aside>

Date: Friday, June 5, 2026, 12:00 PM

Presenter: Bradley Hoot

Learning Community: Open Science in Practice: Tools and Workflows for Transparent, Reproducible Research

🎯 Meeting Objectives

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

  1. Define what "materials" means in their own discipline and distinguish it from open data and open code.
  2. Identify candidate materials in their current workflow that could be shared, and the ones that should not be.
  3. Choose an appropriate platform for each material type (general-purpose, protocols, stimuli, reagents, language data, code-as-instrument).
  4. Navigate the legal and ethical constraints around sharing: IRB and consent, copyright on stimuli, Material Transfer Agreements, FERPA, and culturally sensitive material.
  5. Apply CARE principles alongside FAIR when sharing materials that involve human communities.
  6. Recognize collaborative-protocol consortia in their field and evaluate whether participating fits their research.
  7. Connect open materials to the open-science practices already covered this year (pre-registration, open data, reproducible analysis, transparent reporting, open access, version control).

<aside> 🧵

Where this fits in our year. We have covered most of the open-science lifecycle already: design (Meeting 2 pre-registration), data (Meeting 3 open data and FAIR), analysis (Meeting 4 reproducible workflows), reporting (Meeting 5 transparent reporting standards), publication (Meeting 6 open access), and the connective tissue of version control (Meeting 7 Git and GitHub). Today fills the last operational gap: the materials that produced the research in the first place. The stimuli a participant saw, the protocol a chemist ran, the transcription convention a linguist used, the codebook a criminologist applied. The stuff between the methods section and a replicator's success.

</aside>

PART 1️⃣: What "Materials" Actually Means

1.1 The gap between a methods section and a successful replication

A typical methods section reads: "Participants were asked to rate stimuli on a 7-point scale." Or: "The compound was synthesized using a standard Suzuki coupling procedure." Or: "Sociolinguistic interviews were transcribed using community-standard conventions."