Friday links: reproducibility vs. mental health, and more (UPDATED with breaking news)

Sorry, life intervened, only a few links and minimal commentary this week.

From Jeremy:

UPDATE: This afternoon, the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution rescinded Denon Start’s Early Career Award, and his Excellence in Doctoral Research Award. I have no further information.

A mega-correction for a Jonathan Pruitt paper. Co-author Nick Keiser went back to his original field notebooks to correct and re-analyze the raw data, in collaboration with the journal editors. The correction also elaborates and corrects the methods section of the original paper. The correction states that the conclusions of the original paper remain qualitatively unchanged.

Prominent Harvard anthropologist Gary Urton has been placed on leave in the wake of numerous accusations of sexual misconduct.

Nature reviews a new feature-length documentary about Maryam Mirzakhani, the first (and to this day, only) woman to win the Fields Medal.

An interview with Jory Lerback, Brooks Hanson, and Paige Wooden on their work on gender bias in peer review and coauthorship networks in geoscience.

Marine biologist Jeff Clements on the links between the reproducibility crisis and researcher mental health.

MIT ends negotiations with Elsevier over a new journal subscription contract.

Data Colada explains the intuition behind recent research showing that there is in fact a “hot hand” in basketball, and why previous researchers overlooked it. This would be a very accessible case study for an undergrad intro stats course on how tricky it is to reason about probabilities, and how difficult it can be to choose the right null model to test.


3 thoughts on “Friday links: reproducibility vs. mental health, and more (UPDATED with breaking news)

    • There’s minimal information on this situation online. And it looks like some tweets and websites have disappeared. Yet a public announcement was made.
      Did people get scared when lawyers appeared on the Pruitt case?

      • In general, individuals and organizations can have various good reasons for not sharing details about situations like this, including but not limited to caution about possible legal consequences. For instance (and I’m just speaking generally here), victims of harassment might not want details of what was done to them made public, because they don’t want to have to relive terrible experiences.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.