Brian NosekAug 28, 2023

The terms for researchers examining potential violations of research integrity are bad (data police, data thug).

What is an alternative term that:

* doesn't imply anything about the intentions of the people who did the work being investigated (deliberate or accidental)

* doesn't imply the researcher has any power over the people/work being investigated

* does indicate the work is scholarly, and should be valued

* does indicate that "self-appointment" to investigate is appropriate & ordinary

Show threadHao YeAug 28, 2023
@briannosek maybe QA QC has a positive bent?
Show threadArlen MollerAug 29, 2023
@hye @briannosek I think there’s something to framing the role and process as approach (v. avoidance) oriented for the researchers whose work is being checked/audited — the potential for a positive outcome (e.g., a “gold certification”) as opposed to relief. In general, it seems to me positive reproducibility and audit outcomes aren’t celebrated/recognized enough
Show threadMelissa Kline StruhlAug 29, 2023
@arlen @hye @briannosek I smell a new badge...
Show threadArlen MollerAug 29, 2023
@melissaekline @hye @briannosek perhaps! If the title of the independent peer data reviewer conveyed the potential for awarding the badge — even better :)
Show threadMelissa Kline Struhl
@arlen @hye @briannosek Let's hold out for those cool stamper things like the notaries have
Aug 29, 2023 at 1:45pmWeb
Show threadHao YeAug 29, 2023
@melissaekline @arlen @briannosek I'm still a fan of:
https://twitter.com/Hao_and_Y/status/1529165080071483397
Hao Ye (@hye@glammr.us) on X

New incentive scheme for open science (co-devised with @april_cs and @juancommander). Basic idea: Publish a paper with open data = get 1 credit Trade in 3 credits = un-publish any one paper with “data available upon request”

X (formerly Twitter)