[{"id":244,"title":"miniReproducibility Project","sha":"af37b26a8f59d0cc6779845f841dd397","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"A valuable but hidden set of data: research trainees spend months to years confirming previously published data. These experiments are not considered publishable. Other trainees in the same field “reinvent the wheel” due to lack of publicly available information.\r\n\r\nA simple idea: Imagine the savings in time and resources, reduction in retractions and the impact of each experiment if we knew the following:  10 labs repeated it, 7 found a phenotype and 3 did not. What if a single click could highlight differences in methodology between each experiment?\r\n \r\nOur vision is to create a gamified portal for researchers (initially focused on students and postdocs) to publish replicated data, compare methodology and provide reproducibility statistics for individual experiments. A user ladder with increasing prestige (pioneer--\u003escholar---\u003ecatalyst), reviewing and commenting rights, and goodies donated by biotech (antibodies, kits etc.), coupled with the real benefit of having publications and peer-reviewing experience will attract trainees and encourage return usage.\r\n \r\nThe act of comparing several submissions and associated methodologies itself has received overwhelming support from a large network of fellow trainees and mentors (~100). We request a technical partnership to allow single experiment submission, review by several “players” and assessment of reproducibility.","created_at":"2015-09-30T17:36:38.982Z","updated_at":"2020-08-09T06:00:50.173Z","zenodo_id":63019,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.31626","subject":null,"tags":["open research accelerator","reproducibility","trainees","students","postdoc","gamification","incentivization","single figure publication","peer-review"],"vote_count":5,"view_count":1,"score":5.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":"miniReproducibility_Mozfest_2015.pdf","attachment_content_type":"application/pdf","attachment_file_size":232786,"attachment_updated_at":"2015-09-30T17:36:38.770Z"},{"id":783,"title":"The Journal of Competitive Programming","sha":"22d162eea10da254172a9d3bd3559749","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Competitive Programming (CP) or Sports Programming is solving well-defined problem statements abiding by time and memory constraints with the help of [sandboxed environments](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2126174/what-is-sandboxing) on computing machines, appropriate data structures, and algorithms. Many journals are related to algorithms and respective real-life uses, but not specific for CP. Currently, 19+ online coding platforms support 30+ programming languages. The top MNCs like [FAANG](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp) also support CP and hire thousands of engineers proficient in CP. CP's scope is to test and improve analytical, mathematical, and problem-solving abilities and not necessarily the real-life problems. Much of the content related to CP present on the internet is redundant and scattered because of many websites, repositories, videos, and blogs managed by public and private communities, clubs, and organizations. All platforms are open for general discussions but lag an accepted peer-review process due to which a lot of content is either incomplete or incorrect. These scenarios make it difficult for someone who has developed a new algorithm and aims to publish it in a centralized peer-reviewed journal used and contributed to by everyone with open access. The author's rights and the credits for inventing new algorithms or new computing methods should be protected using a recognized journal whose scope is CP.","created_at":"2020-09-22T17:55:18.277Z","updated_at":"2021-02-24T18:29:34.365Z","zenodo_id":4047634,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4047634","subject":null,"tags":["competitive-programming","sports-programming","algorithms","problem-solving","data-structures","faang","peer-review"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":90,"title":"The Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Analyzing Decision Making and Peer Review","sha":"a79dd10c3b3804e4797bf1882ebf401d","user_id":151,"state":"published","body":"The legitimacy of a funding agency in basic research depends at least on the following factors: \r\n* organization’s ability to minimize distortions in approval probability by its decision procedure\r\n* the scientific quality of results produced by funded research proposals\r\n* the acceptance of the procedures by the scientific community. \r\n\r\nTo ensure these requirements, the [FWF] (http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/) started a sequence of empirical studies which contain analyses of the decision making procedure (peer review) as well as statistical and bibliometric analyses of FWF funded proposals. A survey among the Austrian scientific community followed. Some of the analyses are conducted by the FWF itself, others by independent experts, eg. from the [MPG Munich] (http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/) or [CWTS Leiden.] (http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/) All results are [openly accessible.] (http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/about-the-fwf/publications/)\r\n\r\nOur endeavor will round off all these studies to summarize the results. Addressees of this (policy) paper are the scientific community, policy makers and the public. FWF’s goal is to address urban legends about its work, compare results and link them to get the big picture of FWF’s efforts during the last years. Among others we will address potential biases in our decision mechanisms, discuss outcomes and impacts and compare the results with the opinions of the scientific community.\r\n\r\n\r\n*[Falk Reckling](/users/df7f367ccf932e5acf3d918adda77a79), Ralph Reimann, [Klaus Zinöcker](/users/4a556c9956cef302c8f19c97a2adcc00), FWF*\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2015-02-23T08:39:47.441Z","updated_at":"2015-02-27T08:47:42.192Z","zenodo_id":23334,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15602","subject":null,"tags":["science_policy","researchers","research","evaluation","peer-review","bibliometrics"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]