ReproducibiliTea journal club
Estonia’s first ReproducibiliTea will take place on the 25th of November at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. ReproTea is a journal club started at the Oxford University in 2018. The goal of the club is to discuss diverse issues, papers and ideas about improving science, reproducibility and the Open Science movement. Currently, 102 institutions have joined the movement in 24 countries. The club meets regularly in a welcoming and safe environment to discuss papers and the pros and cons of Open Science, accompanied by some hot drinks and cookies.
The ReproTea at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities puts special emphasis on Open Science in the humanities – what is open science?; what is reproducible research?; why should a humanities researcher worry about reproducibility of their research?; how do I make my qualitative methodology reproducible?; is there a replication crisis in the humanities?; how do I publish sensitive data?
Everyone from PhD students to professors is welcome to join the journal club – the only requirement is that you care or are curious about Open Science. In addition to discussing articles, we very much welcome discussions on practical issues you might have encountered or are currently dealing with in your research – as a team, we can help each other out!
The journal club will meet once a month on Friday in Jakobi 2-427, 2—4PM. All articles are in English, the working language of the club is whatever all current participants understand.
If you are interested in the club, please write Mariann Proos (firstname.lastname@example.org) and we will add you to a mailing list, where we will send reminders and information about the journal club meetings. You are also very welcome to just drop by at the scheduled time!
Preliminary schedule for 2022/2023
Goodman, Steven N., Daniele Fanelli & John P. A. Ioannidis. 2016. What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine 8(341). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027. (7 p.)
Munafò, Marcus R., Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Christopher D. Chambers, Nathalie Percie du Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Jennifer J. Ware & John P. A. Ioannidis. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1(1). 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021. (9 p.)
Stürmer, Stefan, Aileen Oeberst, Roman Trötschel & Oliver Decker. 2017. Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science. Social Psychology 48(6). 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324. (7 p.)
Frankenhuis, Willem E. & Daniel Nettle. 2018. Open Science Is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13(4). 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618767878. (9 p.)
McKiernan, Erin C, Philip E Bourne, C Titus Brown, Stuart Buck, Amye Kenall, Jennifer Lin, Damon McDougall, et al. 2016. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5. e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800. (19 p.)
Longley Arthur, Paul & Lydia Hearn. 2021. Toward Open Research: A Narrative Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for Open Humanities. Journal of Communication jqab028. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab028. (28 p.)
Narayan, Bhuva, Edward J. Luca, Belinda Tiffen, Ashley England, Mal Booth & Henry Boateng. 2018. Scholarly Communication Practices in Humanities and Social Sciences: A Study of Researchers’ Attitudes and Awareness of Open Access. Open Information Science 2(1). 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2018-0013. (13 p.)
Peels, Rik & Lex Bouter. 2018. The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities. Palgrave Communications 4(1). 95. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0149-x. (4 p.)