Academic conferences present researchers with a fantastic opportunity to share their work, gain feedback, and spark new collaborations. But to attend most conferences you must submit an abstract of completed work, months in advance. What if you’re just getting started? Roni Tibon, together with Rik Henson and other members of the MRC CBU Open Science Committee, raised the issue in a recent article published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Here Roni guides us through the problem, and what they see as the solution.
A call for abstract submissions opens for a great conference in July. The deadline is early January. Many of your colleagues are going and it’ll be a wonderful opportunity to get input on your work and learn about other peoples’ research.
But as you check the submission guidelines, you realise that the conference organisers ask for abstracts to include results and conclusions, and you can’t provide any conclusions. Maybe you’re still collecting data, considering your design or haven’t started running your experiment yet. Read more
A preprint is a scientific manuscript uploaded by authors to an open access, public server before formal peer review. With the rising popularity of preprint servers enabling fast and direct distribution of knowledge across the world, and plans underway to establish a ‘Central Service for Preprints’, Isabel Baker asked some converts across the MRC community why they’ve jumped on board.
“Preprint posting is the right thing to do for science and society. It enables us to share our results earlier, speeding up the pace of science. It also enables us to catch errors earlier, minimising the risk of alerting the world to our findings (through a high-impact publication) before the science is solid.
“Importantly, preprints ensure long-term, open access to our results for scientists and for the public. Preprints can be rapidly posted for free on arXiv and bioRxiv, enabling instant open access. We post every paper as a preprint in my lab, at the time of the first submission to a journal.”
Today the MRC and a group of partner organisations issued an update on what we have been doing to address of reproducibility and reliability of research since the publication of the report of our symposium on the issue last year. Dr Frances Rawle, our Head of Corporate Governance and Policy, talks about what we’ve done so far.
Reproducibility is everyone’s problem. If we can’t ensure that our results are reliable, then our research can’t improve human health.
Everyone involved in biomedical research, including funders, individual researchers, research institutes, universities, publishers and academies – must play a part in improving research practices.
We’ve worked across the sector to discover the main causes of irreproducible results and what we can do to improve the situation. Read more