Meeting summary
The meeting introduced participants to the Foundation of Open Science, where they shared their backgrounds and experiences with reproducible research across different fields. The group discussed the prevalence and implications of Open Science, particularly focusing on reproducibility and publishing practices, while exploring challenges such as author paywalls and cultural resistance. The session concluded with plans for future initiatives, including monthly meetings and the creation of a Discord channel, while addressing practical implementation guidelines and resources for open science practices.
The meeting introduced participants to the Foundation of Open Science, focusing on establishing a shared understanding of open science principles and their importance. Participants shared their backgrounds and experiences with reproducible research, with Corin discussing computer security, Brad highlighting linguistics, Kimberly focusing on psychology, and Kyle emphasizing chemistry. Vahid, the facilitator, introduced himself and outlined the session's goals, including discussing open science challenges and planning future initiatives. The group agreed to explore practical implementation guidelines and engage in interactive discussions about expectations and future plans for the open science community at DePaul.
The group discussed the prevalence and implications of Open Science, particularly in the context of reproducibility and publishing practices. Kyle explained that Open Science is increasingly required for research funded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, though it presents challenges such as author paywalls for open access publishing. Kimberly highlighted that in psychology, Open Science encompasses not just open access but also open materials, data, and code, emphasizing the importance of reproducibility. Brad noted a similar shift in behavioral and cognitive sciences, with top journals now mandating open data and experiment materials. The discussion touched on the distinction between reproducibility and open access, with Kimberly mentioning a current debate about whether computational reproducibility has been overemphasized at the expense of methodological quality.