Brian Nosek

One of the more exciting things that we've been working on is a new initiative that we're calling Lifecycle Journal. And the basic idea is to reimagine scholarly publishing without the original constraints of paper. A lot of how the peer review process and publishing occurs today was done because of the limits of paper.

But in a world where we can actually communicate digitally, there's no reason that we need to wait till the research is done to provide some evaluation. There's no reason to consider it final when it could be easily revised and updated. There's no reason to think of review as a singular one set of activities that by three people who judge the entire thing.

But in a world where we can actually communicate digitally, there's no reason that we need to wait till the research is done to provide some evaluation. There's no reason to consider it final when it could be easily revised and updated. There's no reason to think of review as a singular one set of activities that by three people who judge the entire thing.

But in a world where we can actually communicate digitally, there's no reason that we need to wait till the research is done to provide some evaluation. There's no reason to consider it final when it could be easily revised and updated. There's no reason to think of review as a singular one set of activities that by three people who judge the entire thing.

And so we will have a full marketplace of evaluation services that are each evaluating the research in different ways. It'll happen across the research lifecycle from planning through completion. And researchers will always be able to update and revise when errors or corrections are needed.

And so we will have a full marketplace of evaluation services that are each evaluating the research in different ways. It'll happen across the research lifecycle from planning through completion. And researchers will always be able to update and revise when errors or corrections are needed.

And so we will have a full marketplace of evaluation services that are each evaluating the research in different ways. It'll happen across the research lifecycle from planning through completion. And researchers will always be able to update and revise when errors or corrections are needed.

My whole life is about trying to promote transparent research practices, greater openness, trying to improve rigor and reproducibility. I am just as vulnerable to error as anybody else. And so one of the real lessons, I think, is that without transparency, these errors will go unexposed.

My whole life is about trying to promote transparent research practices, greater openness, trying to improve rigor and reproducibility. I am just as vulnerable to error as anybody else. And so one of the real lessons, I think, is that without transparency, these errors will go unexposed.

My whole life is about trying to promote transparent research practices, greater openness, trying to improve rigor and reproducibility. I am just as vulnerable to error as anybody else. And so one of the real lessons, I think, is that without transparency, these errors will go unexposed.

It would have been very hard for the critics to identify that we had screwed this up without being able to access the portions of the materials that we were able to make public. And as people are engaged with critique and pursuing transparency – and transparency is becoming more normal –

It would have been very hard for the critics to identify that we had screwed this up without being able to access the portions of the materials that we were able to make public. And as people are engaged with critique and pursuing transparency – and transparency is becoming more normal –

It would have been very hard for the critics to identify that we had screwed this up without being able to access the portions of the materials that we were able to make public. And as people are engaged with critique and pursuing transparency – and transparency is becoming more normal –

We might, for a while, see an ironic effect, which is transparency seems to be associated with poorer research because more errors are identified. And that ought to happen because errors are occurring. Without transparency, you can't possibly catch them. But what might emerge over time as our verification processes improve, as we have a sense of accountability to our transparency,

We might, for a while, see an ironic effect, which is transparency seems to be associated with poorer research because more errors are identified. And that ought to happen because errors are occurring. Without transparency, you can't possibly catch them. But what might emerge over time as our verification processes improve, as we have a sense of accountability to our transparency,

We might, for a while, see an ironic effect, which is transparency seems to be associated with poorer research because more errors are identified. And that ought to happen because errors are occurring. Without transparency, you can't possibly catch them. But what might emerge over time as our verification processes improve, as we have a sense of accountability to our transparency,

then the fact that transparency is there may decrease error over time, but not the need to check. And that's the key.

then the fact that transparency is there may decrease error over time, but not the need to check. And that's the key.

then the fact that transparency is there may decrease error over time, but not the need to check. And that's the key.

This is a real challenge that we wrestle with and have wrestled with since the origins of the center is how do we promote this culture of critique and self-criticism about our field and and simultaneously have that be understood as the strength of research rather than its weakness.