A colleague reached out to me recently about a project we’d worked on years ago. The work involved a study of how adult observers categorize visual patterns that have intrinsic regularities.
A recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Redish et al. argues that ‘reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry.’ The authors remind readers that progress in many fields often proceeds haltingly, with successes, retrenchments, reconsiderations, and revisions.
I’ve found myself at odds recently with colleagues who, like me, view themselves as advocates for open science. This post attempts to clarify what I see as the crux of our disagreements.
If you plan to attend the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) meeting in Baltimore later this week, you might be interested in some of the open science activities that will be taking place: