Recently, academic organisations in the Netherlands have been discussing how we can improve the system of Recognition and Rewards for scientists. In a short interview for Tilburg University, I explain my hope that rewarding Open Science can benefit both science and scientists.

In a comment in Nature that came out today, we address the potential problem of conflicts of interest in psychology awards. We went over the websites of 58 psychological societies, and found that the large majority did not mention any conflict of interest policy with respect to awards. This means we can’t rule out the possibility that recipients of the awards may be closely affiliated with the award committee (e.g., a supervisor selecting his/her PhD student for an award). We urge societies to be open about their award procedures, to avoid the impression of hidden nepotism.

We thank everyone who helped us coding the websites at the 2019 SIPS meeting.

Read the Nature comment here.

Read the working paper here.

In a recent letter to the editor in the Chronicle, we reply to an earlier article that

presented the open science movement as “burning things to the ground”. We disagreed. We mainly see cooperative, constructive, and pragmatic initiatives to improve the state of psychological science.

Read the full letter here.

Chartier, C. R., Kline, M. E., McCarthy, R. J., Nuijten, M. B., Dunleavy, D. J., & Ledgerwood, A. A cooperative revolution in psychology. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Saturday June 30, I was interviewed about my dissertation for the Dutch radio show “Dr Kelder & Co”, for NPO Radio 1. The main takeaways: scientists are also just people, psychology is heading into the right direction, and trains don’t always do what you want.

Listen to the whole interview (in Dutch) here.

Nature published a series of comments all focused on ways to fix our statistics. In my comment, I argue that the main problem is the flexibility in data analysis, combined with incentives to find significant results. A possible solution would be to preregister analysis plans, and to share data.

Read the entire piece here, for the following set of solutions:

• Jeff Leek: Adjust for human cognition
• Blake McShane, Andrew Gelman, David Gal, Christian Robert, and Jennifer Tackett: Abandon statistical significance
• David Colquhoun: State false-positive risk, too
• Michèle Nuijten: Share analysis plans and results
• Steven Goodman: Change norms from within

Illustration by David Parkins