Following up on my last post on meteorology, I want to draw readers' attention to the American Meteorological Society's information statement on weather analysis and forecasting, which appeared in the Society's Bulletin recently, and can be found online here. I found it to be very informative.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Dr. Marshall Shepherd's weather pet peeves
Check out Dr. Marshall Shepherd's blog post, "10 Common Myths and Misconceptions about the Science of Weather" at Forbes.com. He is a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia and a former president of the American Meteorological Society.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Self-correction and an open research culture in science
Back in the June 26 issue of Science, there was a pair of commentaries by Alberts et al. (2015) and Nosek et al. (2015) entitled, respectively, "Self-correction in science at work" and "Promoting an open research culture." Both articles are reactions to concerns about non-reproducible research. The first one focuses on incentives, investigations of misconduct, and ethics education. The second article deals with transparency, and introduces a set of guidelines called TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion). It discusses various standards for transparency, with different levels. While I do not think this pair of articles captures the whole scope of the irreproducibility crisis, they do provide much food for thought on how we should address it. Thus I recommend both articles to DTLR readers.
One passage in Nosek, et al. (2015), discussing the preregistration of studies and analysis plans, caught my eye. "Preregistration of analysis plans certify the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory research, or what is also called hypothesis testing versus hypothesis generating research. Making transparent the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory methods can enhance reproducibility." I fully endorse this perspective. I have met scientists who fail to understand the point made here so succinctly, and it really deserves emphasis.
B. Alberts, et al., 2015: Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348: 1420-1422.
B. A. Nosek, et al., 2015: Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348: 1422-1425.
One passage in Nosek, et al. (2015), discussing the preregistration of studies and analysis plans, caught my eye. "Preregistration of analysis plans certify the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory research, or what is also called hypothesis testing versus hypothesis generating research. Making transparent the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory methods can enhance reproducibility." I fully endorse this perspective. I have met scientists who fail to understand the point made here so succinctly, and it really deserves emphasis.
References
B. Alberts, et al., 2015: Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348: 1420-1422.
B. A. Nosek, et al., 2015: Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348: 1422-1425.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)