Our next speaker is Don Moore.
Dr. Moore holds the Lorraine Tyson Mitchell chair at the Haas School of
Business at the University of California Berkeley.
He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Northwestern University.
His research interests include over confidence.
Including when people think they're better than they actually are.
When people think they're better than others, and
when they're too sure that they know the truth.
And I think in a nice tribute to transparency,
included in his bio is this final line.
He's only occasionally over confident.
>> [LAUGH] >> Thanks.
I should start by thanking the organizers and to all of you who are here.
It is so exciting to be talking about these issues.
We are on the cusp of a revolution.
I want to talk about potential ideas for accelerating that revolution.
And in doing so I know that I'm preaching to the choir, here, a little bit, but
I think all of us can feel very good about our contributions, however modest,
to this enormously important public goods problem, especially on this Earth day.
So, my history with some of the issues I want to talk about,
trace back to a meeting that
changed the way I think about professional incentives at the society for
experimental social psychology where Bobby Spellman among others
Said the field's not going to change until the incentives change.
And, I thought, damn straight.
And I went to a faculty meeting at the high school where I work and
said to the associate dean, "We need a past resolution
specifically indicating our plans to reward our colleagues for
doing open science when we're considering promotion tenure decisions.
He was supportive.
I brought it up at a faculty meeting and was filibustered and voted down by my
colleagues in an extremely frustrating moment where I had my hopes crushed and
then emerged, nevertheless optimistic because I realized Wait, I don't need some
sort of endorsement from all of them to note the importance of open science.
I'm gonna be at the faculty meetings where we discuss
whether someone deserves tenure or not.
And I can bring up the fact, I can not whether they have posted their data or
whether they've pre-registered any of these studies.
That they did.
And what that, the path that that started me down
is an individual response to my frustration at slow institutional change.
Which when I'm flattering myself, I like to think of as being bold and
courageous but I have a feeling that
plenty of other people regard as irresponsible vigilante justice.
I think I'm comfortable with that characterization as well.
So when it comes to changing the incentives
Journal publications is number one on that list.
The fact that all journals don't require data posting, I think is outrageous.
So, what can I do about that?
Well, I have started asking I started out by noting in my
private note to editors, I believe all journals if they care about
the integrity of their scientific process should require data posting.
Then when editors ignored that, I started putting it in my reviews,
I will not support publication until the authors had posted their data.
When editors then routinely said,
you can ignore reviewer one on his strange request.
Then I started, and this is brand new,
further annoying editors by saying I will only agree to conduct and to perform my
review on the condition That I first have the data in hand and the author's commit
to posting it upon publication.I don't know how that's gonna go we'll see.
What I have done for much longer is include this note in my reviews.
So after consultation with Brian Nosick And
some others at the Center for Open Science reformulated this wording,
that a number of people include in reviews.
I realize that by inserting this strong language in reviews, I make myself
identifiable, this is an attempt To sort of spread out the responsibility and
create some ambiguity about who exactly was making these strange requests.
But what a number of us include is this.
I request that the authors add a statement to the paper confirming whether, for
all experiments, they have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and
how they determined their sample size.
The authors should,of course,
Add any additional text to ensure the statement is accurate.
This is a standard reviewer disclosure request endorsed by the Center
for Open Science.
So if you're interested in including this in your reviews, the link is there.
And it's obviously at the Open Science Framework and searchable online.
So after journal publication or publications feed into,
of course, decisions on hiring, how can we take action individually
when our institutions are slow to focus on importance of open science?
I have become the fortunate person in my department who pecurves all applicants.
So in considering in hiring someone I get the privilege
of vetoing them before they make it to the short list after I have
had the chance to read their papers and pecurve them to make some assessment of
the likelihood that Their published record includes evidentiary value.
That's a royal pain in the keister but is worth it and important.
And then of course at promotion time I feel very strongly that
I would like to reward my colleagues when they have practiced good science.
And so I've taken it upon myself to review the record of each person who comes up for
promotion or tenure.
And note at the meeting whether they've posted their data,
whether they've pre-registered any studies.
It's up to my colleagues,
the degree to which they want to weight that information.
Sometimes it is influential in discussions and of course I feel very good about that.
When institutions are slow, there's action that we can take individually to
help light the spark that's gonna change the world.
And so let me just close with viva la revolucion.
Thanks a lot.
>> [APPLAUSE]