Michael W. ColeNov 21, 2023
Redish Lab

An interesting consequence of the hypothesis that human social structures are built on "assurance" or coordination games rather than prisoner's dilemmas:

Coordination games have two stable states. If you are living in a world where everyone else is cooperating, it is in your best interests to cooperate as well. If you are living in a world of cheaters, cooperation is for suckers.

This means your perception of your community has a big impact on your own behavior.

While I agree that we do need things like @deevybee 's defense against the dark arts and @PubPeer and the enforced "share the data as is" regulations that @BorisBarbour has been talking about, I think we also need to make sure that we CELEBRATE openness, integrity, and we make sure that we report it to the world. We do not want all of our news reports to be about fraud.

So, can I recommend a policy? For every fraud that gets reported, find a positive success to talk about. I *guarantee* they are out there. In fact, I bet they are so common, we don't notice them.

All the people who share their code and fix the bugs that others find. The labs that say "come on by and we'll show you how we do stuff". The people who work with others to make their data useful and not just "out there". There are lots and lots of these positive examples. I worry they get lost because they are so common. We need a hashtag for celebratory cooperation in the sciences. I'm open to suggestions.

PS. For those who don't know it, the coordination game is structured so that for player A (given player B choice): C(C) > D(C) > D(D) > C(D), as compared to the prisoner's dilemma which is: D(C) > C(C) > D(D) > C(D).

In the coordination game, it is best to do what the other player is doing. In the prisoner's dilemma it is best to defect. There are n-player extensions of this as well.

Nov 21, 2023 at 1:31pmWeb
Show threadBoris BarbourNov 21, 2023

@adredish @deevybee @PubPeer

In other words, researchers should be evaluated on their practices and not on the numbers of their publications and the impact factors of their journals?

To some extent we can make that happen, but there are many other places than social media that may be more effective. Promotions, hiring, grants, reviews...

Show threadRedish LabNov 21, 2023

@BorisBarbour @deevybee @PubPeer

No, I'm not talking about evaluation issues at all here. I'm actually talking about something much different.

I'm talking about the perception of our field as one full of fraudsters that have to be policed or they will get away with something. I think these are rare (but real) and I think it is important that their description be balanced with positive signals about a cooperative community.

I want people to post thank yous to social media when someone helps them with a piece of code they are having trouble with. I want people to post thank yous to social media when a positive discussion leads to a new idea. I want people to post thank yous to social media when a lab lets their postdoc visit for a week and teaches them a new technique. Or sends them the new viruses without requesting co-authorship or payment. These things all happen lots of times. It's part of the amazing cooperative science community we have. #cooperativescience

What I discovered in writing my #ChangingHowWeChoose book, is that that perception matters. A lot.

Show threadAlbert CardonaNov 21, 2023

@BorisBarbour @adredish @deevybee @PubPeer

That's the whole premise of pre-registration studies.

Show threadRedish LabNov 21, 2023

@albertcardona @BorisBarbour @deevybee @PubPeer

How does pre-registration get to this question? Or are you answering a different thread?

Please check back and re-read the post that started this thread. I'm saying something very different about social media and perception and the creation of community.

Show threadAlbert CardonaNov 21, 2023

@adredish

Hi, I was answering @BorisBarbour post where he writes, quote, "In other words, researchers should be evaluated on their practices and not on the numbers of their publications and the impact factors of their journals?".

@deevybee @PubPeer

Show threadJohn TowseNov 21, 2023

@PubPeer @adredish @deevybee @BorisBarbour

There are definitely examples that come up from time to time of where
Data sharing (paper 1) -> novel analysis (paper 2)

Not just meta-analysis data aggregation (though that has value also) but uncovering a fresh perspective.

Naturally the ideal would be this is so commonplace as to be quite unremarkable, but we’re not there yet, and raising visibility would address the theme here

Show threadDan GoodmanNov 21, 2023

@adredish @deevybee @PubPeer @BorisBarbour I thoroughly agree with the idea of commending and praising examples of openness, integrity, etc. I try to do this for others in social media, and love it when others do it to me. Everything gets better if we do this.

But this won't be enough on its own. 😉

Show threadbkNov 21, 2023
@adredish @deevybee @PubPeer @BorisBarbour
Would be interesting to compare the cooperation / defection ratio across different fields (e.g., scientific research, medicine, teaching, advertising, politics, etc.). My optimistic hunch is that research would still rank favorably by comparison (i.e., more cooperation than defection).