On his website, Brian Nosek posts this quote:
‘All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” – Albert Einstein
Improving science is precious to Nosek and the Center for Open Science at the University of Virginia that he leads.
I interviewed him recently at the “Improving Biomedical Research 2015” conference at Stanford, hosted by METRICS, run by John Ioannidis and Steven Goodman. Here is our podcast episode with that interview:
Nosek and colleagues are experimenting with simple badges or icons to show that researcher-authors of a given manuscript have met the principles of open science. At the METRICS conference, he said these “stupid little badges” increased data sharing in one journal from 3% to 38% within a year.
Other reading:
News coverage about Nosek’s work:
Disclosure: Nosek’s work has received a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which also supports HealthNewsReview.org
And thanks to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation for providing us with a grant to produce these podcasts.
Thanks also to our podcast editor Cristeta Boarini.
You can now subscribe to the Health News Watchdog podcast on iTunes at https://itun.es/i6S86Qw or via the RSS feed: http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:167780656/sounds.rss
All episodes of our podcasts are archived on this page.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.