https://www.jstor.org/stable/44138849

Hi all,

We've recently launched Registered Reports Community Feedback - a site to better understand authors' and reviewers' experience of the Registered Reports peer review process:

https://registeredreports.cardiff.ac.uk

The broad goal is to collect data regarding how well various aspects of the Registered Reports process are implemented across academic journals.

This data will be aggregated and displayed publicly, showing how journals were rated across a range of categories by authors and reviewers.

We hope this will:

1. Help the community in choosing where to submit their Registered Report manuscripts
2. Incentivise publishers to improve the Registered Reports process at their journals

We want your feedback!

If you've been an author or reviewer of a Registered Report manuscript at Stage 1 and/or Stage 2, you can find our survey here (takes 5-10mins):

https://registeredreports.cardiff.ac.uk/feedback/feedback/selector.php

Don't forget to invite your co-authors - their feedback is important too!

​

Screenshot of dashboard, showing aggregate ratings by authors and reviewers of their experience of the Registered Reports peer review process

So far, while the site has been in testing, users have given over 150 pieces of feedback across 34 journals.

You can view our dashboards, where journals are ranked by ratings, along with more detailed summaries for each journal:

https://registeredreports.cardiff.ac.uk/feedback/dashboards/

Along with contributing to community knowledge via the site, data will be used as part of my PhD on metascience.

Both the summary data and source code of the site will be released under open licences.

The team behind the site are: myself, Chris Chambers, and Loukia Tzavella (all at Cardiff University), with funding provided by Arnold Ventures.

Many thanks to all the beta-testers whose time and ideas have helped improve the site!

Any questions or comments, contact details here:

https://registeredreports.cardiff.ac.uk/feedback/contact/

Thanks!

If you want to win the The Nobel prize for science then just do this

Magister colin leslie dean has destroyed your biology with one sentence

you accept species

you accept species hybridization

thus

species hybridization contradicts the notion of species-thus making evolution ie evolving species nonsense

thus

If you want to win The Nobel prize for science be an Einstein and put the anomalies-hybridization's- into a new paradigm

a paradigm shift is required to take account of the fact that species and evolution are in fact nonsense

so what is a species

Scientific reality is textual

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-reality-is-textual.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/572639157/Scientific-Reality-is-Textual

just a definition

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring"

but

but species hybridization contradicts

that

https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00113

"When organisms from two different species mix, or breed together, it is known as hybridization"

"Fertile hybrids create a very complex problem in science, because this breaks a rule from the Biological Species Concept"

so the definition of species is nonsense

note

when Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense

evolution is a myth

www.elicit.org

Hi all!
For the past few years, a small team of us here at System has been working to build a platform to organize the world’s data and knowledge in a whole new way.We just launched our public beta, and we’d love for you to check it out at System.com.

Our commitment to open data and open science is explicitly codified in our Public Benefit Charter. Like Wikipedia, the information on System is available under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, and topic definitions on System are sourced from Wikidata.

V1.0-beta of System is read-only, but soon, anyone will be able to contribute evidence of relationships. To become an early contributor of data or research to System (whether it’s research you’ve authored yourself, or published research that exists elsewhere), or just to be part of our growing community of systems thinkers, please come join us on Slack.

A few days ago, I discussed a project that I've been developing for assessing scientific predictive power. I've written a much more detailed explanation of the ideas behind it, and today I uploaded it to the physics preprint arXiv here:

Assessing scientific predictive power

Organized Skepticism

Currently working on a scoping review protocol and wondering if anyone has experience publishing with JB Evidence Synthesis? Do they require authors to complete their training, or is it optional? Haven't found anything in the author guidelines, but I've heard informally they do require it. TIA

r/reproducibilitycrisis

Hi all,

I'm running my first methodological survey of sorts, and it's based on couple of simple searches in PubMed that included a time restriction for the past five years, up to July 31, 2021.

I ran both searches on August 2 and got 1,125 and 131 hits, respectively. Out of curiosity (and maybe some anxiety as this is my first time) I ran it again recently and got 1,122 and 132 instead.

I'm less concerned about the 1,122 because I'd rather have a bigger number that my team and I are currently looking through. But I was able to identify that one "missing record" of the 132, and it has a creation date of April 3 and was published in July issue of a journal.

Any more experienced searchers out there who could tell me what's happening here? Is this a common experience? More importantly, should I go ahead and add that 1 reference, or just accept that it didn't come up when the search was originally run?