Erratum to: Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work (Front. Comput. Neurosci., (2014), 8, 82, 20130432, (10.3389/fncom.2014.00082));Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn 8, Issue AUG, 2014, Pages

  Buttliere, Brett T ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Choice design; Open science; Publication process; Scientific communication

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL COMPUTING; NEUROLOGY;

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATIONS; CURRENT CHANGE; DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATIONS; EXPECTED UTILITY; OPEN SCIENCE; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION; SYSTEM INTERACTIONS;

REVIEWS;

AUTOMATION; BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; DIGITAL COMPUTER; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MOTIVATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; REWARD; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 84940300361     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2015.00053     Document Type: Erratum

References (72)

1. Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., and Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a facebook addiction scale 1, 2. Psychol. Rep. 110, 501-517. doi: 10.2466/02.09.18.pr0.110.2.501-517
2. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J., Fiedler, K., et al. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 108-119. doi: 10.1002/per.1919
3. Bachmann, T. (2011). Fair and open evaluation may call for temporarily hidden authorship, caution when counting the votes and transparency of the full pre-publication procedure. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5: 61. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00061
4. Bekkers, R. (2012). Risk factors for fraud and academic misconduct in the social sciences. Academia. Edu. Available online at: http: //renebekkers. files. wordpress. com/2012/11/risk-factors. pdf
5. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., et al. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 31, 145-152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006
6. Bentham, J., and Mill, J. S. (2004). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. UK: Penguin.
7. Berne, E. (1964). Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. New York: Tantor eBooks.
8. Bian, J., Liu, Y., Zhou, D., Agichtein, E., and Zha, H. (2009). "Learning to recognize reliable users and content in social media with coupled mutual reinforcement, " in Proceedings of The 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (Madrid, Spain: EU), 51-60.
9. Bijvank, M. N., Konijn, E. A., Bushman, B. J., and Roelofsma, P. H. (2009). Age and violent-content labels make video games forbidden fruits for youth. Pediatrics 123, 870-876. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0601
10. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5: 56. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
11. Björk, B.-C. (2007). A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Inf. Res. 12: 307. Available online at: http: //InformationR. net/ir/12-2/paper307. html
12. Blanchard, B. S., and Fabrycky, W. J. (1990). Systems Engineering and Analysis (Vol. 4). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13. Branson, R. (2012). War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure. Available online at: http: //edition. cnn. com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/. Accessed on 1-4-2013.
14. Cheung, C. M., Lee, Z. W., and Lee, M. K. (2013). "Understanding compulsive use of Facebook through the reinforcement processes, " in Proceedings of the 21st European Conference of Information Systems (Utrecht, The Netherlands: EU)
15. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
16. Darley, J. M., and Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 8, 377-383. doi: 10.1037/h0025589
17. Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.
18. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 18, 105-115. doi: 10.1037/h0030644
19. Edlin, A. S., and Rubinfeld, D. L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing: the 'big deal' bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law J. 72, 119-157.
20. Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv. Emot. 30, 111-116. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7
21. Fehr, E., and Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature 425, 785-791. doi: 10.1038/nature02043
22. Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 31. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00031
23. Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19, 151-156. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9
24. Gibbs, M. J., Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., and Vargus, M. E. (2009). Performance measure properties and incentive system design. Ind. Relat. J. Econ. Soc. 48, 237-264. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232x.2009.00556.x
25. Gilbert, E., and Karahalios, K. (2009). "Predicting tie strength with social media, " in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachuttes, US: ACM), 211-220.
26. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Will we march to utopia, or be dragged there? Past failures and future hopes for publishing our science. Psychol. Inq. 23, 263-266. doi: 10.1080/1047840x.2012.706506
27. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., and Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 280, 237-240. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237
28. Gottfredson, S. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: dimensions, reliability and correlates of quality judgments. Am. Psychol. 33, 920-934. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.33.10.920
29. Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., and Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
30. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243-1248. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
31. Hartgerink, C. (2014). "Open science protocol, " in Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (San Antonio, Texas, US)
32. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52, 1280-1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280
33. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 63. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
34. Huxley, A. (1935). Brave New World. London: HarperCollins.
35. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2: e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
36. Ioannidis, J. P. (2012a). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 645-654. doi: 10.1177/1745691612464056
37. Ioannidis, J. P. (2012b). Scientific communication is down at the moment, please check again later. Psychol. Inq. 23, 267-270. doi: 10.1080/1047840x.2012.699427
38. Iyengar, S. S., Huberman, G., and Jiang, W. (2004). "How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401 (k) retirement plans, " in Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, eds O. Mitchell and S. Utkus (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 83-95.
39. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23, 524-532. doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953
40. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185
41. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142-152. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
42. Kravitz, D. J., and Baker, C. I. (2011). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 55. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
43. Kreiman, G., and Maunsell, J. H. (2011). Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5: 48. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00048
44. Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 79. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079
45. Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., and Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 94. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00094
46. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer review by a selected-papers network. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 1. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00001
47. Legris, P., Ingham, J., and Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 40, 191-204. doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4
48. Nadelmann, E. A. (1989). Drug prohibition in the United States: costs, consequences and alternatives. Science 245, 939-947. doi: 10.1126/science.2772647
49. Nentwich, M., and König, R. (2014). "Academia goes facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm, " in Opening Science (Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer International Publishing), 107-124.
50. Nosek, B., and Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: 1. Opening scientific communication. Psychol. Inq. 23, 217-243. doi: 10.1080/1047840x.2012.692215
51. Orwell, G. (1949). Ninteen Eighty Four. London: Editions Underbahn Ltd.
52. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., and Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 71.
53. Peters, D. P., and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav. Brain Sci. 5, 187-195. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00011183
54. Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 340-354. doi: 10.2307/2094294
55. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., and Neylon, C. (2010). Almetrics: a manifesto.
56. Pulverer, B. (2010). A transparent black box. EMBO J. 29, 3891-3892. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2010.307.Availableonlineat:http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
57. Rand, A. (1937). Anthem. London, England: MobileReference.
58. Rennie, D. (2003). "Editorial peer review: its development and rationale, " in Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (London: BMJ Books), 3-13.
59. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638-641. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638
60. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 30, 445-473. doi: 10.1177/0022427893030004006
61. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359-1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632
62. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., and Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 534-547. doi: 10.1037/a0033242
63. Skinner, B. F. (1972). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Bantam Books (p. 142).
64. Skinner, B. F., and Hayes, J. (1976). Walden Two. New York: Macmillan.
65. Smith, C. (2014). By the numbers: 98 amazing facebook user statistics. Available online at: http: //expandedramblings. com/index. php/by-the-numbers-17-amazing-facebook-stats/#. U0FiwPk0V8E. Accessed on April, 6, 2014.
66. Taylor, C. (2013). Smartphone users check facebook 14 times a day. Available online at: http: //edition. cnn. com/2013/03/28/tech/mobile/survey-phones-facebook/index. html. Accessed on April, 6, 2014.
67. Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. New York: Yale University Press.
68. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., and Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry 176, 47-51. doi: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47
69. Walther, A., and Van den Bosch, J. J. (2012). FOSE: a framework for open science evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 32. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00032
70. Wicherts, J. M., Kievit, R. A., Bakker, M., and Borsboom, D. (2012). Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 20. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020
71. Yarkoni, T. (2012). Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 72. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00072
72. Zimmermann, J., Roebroeck, A., Uludag, K., Sack, A. T., Formisano, E., Jansma, B., et al. (2012). Network-based statistics for a community driven transparent publication process. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 11. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00011