A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts

Modeling the subsistence strategies of prehistoric groups depends on the accuracy of the faunal identifications that provide the basis for these models. However, our knowledge remains limited about the reproducibility of published taxonomic identifications and how they accurately reflect the range of species deposited in the archaeological record. This study compares taxonomic identifications at three Paleolithic sites (Saint-Césaire and Le Piage in France, Crvena Stijena in Montenegro) characterized by high levels of fragmentation. Identifications at these sites were derived using two methods: morphological identification and collagen fingerprinting, the latter a peptide-based approach known as ZooMS. Using a double-blind experimental design, we show that the two methods give taxonomic profiles that are statistically indistinguishable at all three sites. However, rare species and parts difficult to identify such as ribs seem more frequently associated with errors of identification. Comparisons with the indeterminate fraction indicate that large game is over-represented in the ZooMS sample at two of the three sites. These differences possibly signal differential fragmentation of elements from large species. Collagen fingerprinting can produce critical insights on the range distribution of animal prey in the past while also contributing to improved models of taphonomic processes and subsistence behavior.

mmodel: A workflow framework to accelerate the development of experimental simulations

Simulation has become an essential component of designing and developing scientific experiments. The conventional procedural approach to coding simulations of complex experiments is often error-prone, hard to interpret, and inflexible, making it hard to incorporate changes such as algorithm updates, experimental protocol modifications, and looping over experimental parameters. We present mmodel, a Python framework designed to accelerate the writing of experimental simulation packages. mmodel uses a graph-theory approach to represent the experiment steps and can rewrite its own code to implement modifications, such as adding a loop to vary simulation parameters systematically. The framework aims to avoid duplication of effort, increase code readability and testability, and decrease development time.

Are they really stronger? Comparing effects of semantic variables in speeded deadline and standard picture naming

Investigations of effects of semantic variables on picture naming have often been inconclusive, with some studies reporting significant and others non-significant effects. One potential explanation may relate to the specific naming tasks used: While most previous studies have used standard picture naming, others have used speeded naming that requires participants to prioritise naming speed over accuracy. Speeded naming has been suggested to cause enhanced effects of item-inherent word characteristics due to disruptions of cognitive control and resulting modulations of responsiveness to input. Consequently, this study investigated whether effects are stronger in speeded compared to standard picture naming, focusing on six feature-based semantic variables: number of semantic features, intercorrelational density, number of near semantic neighbours, semantic similarity, typicality, and distinctiveness. The results showed few differences in the variables' effects between the two naming tasks: In the naming latency analysis, the inhibitory effect of distinctiveness was stronger in the speeded naming task, while in the accuracy analysis the effect of number of semantic features was stronger in the standard naming task. These findings cannot, therefore, be exclusively accounted for by increased responsiveness to input in speeded naming and we discuss possible underlying mechanisms. We conclude that, while some differences in effects of semantic variables between previous studies may have been caused by the specific naming task used, differences between studies more likely depend on statistical power and control of other influential variables in the experiment.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public

Science should be self-correcting. However, researchers often hesitate to admit errors and to adopt reforms in their own work. In two studies (overall N = 702), we test whether scientific self-criticism and reform intentions expressed by researchers damage or rather improve their reputation in the eyes of the public (i.e. perceivers). Across both studies, such self-correction (compared to no self-correction) increases perceivers' epistemic trustworthiness ascriptions, credibility perceptions, and willingness to further engage with science. Study 2 revealed that these effects were largely driven by the no self-criticism condition. In addition, researchers' commitment to implementing reforms had positive effects and rejecting reforms had negative effects on perceptions, irrespective of the extent of these reforms. These findings suggest that researchers' fear that self-criticism and expressing reform intentions may damage their reputation may be unfounded.

The Tone Debate: Knowledge, Self, and Social Order

In the replication crisis in psychology, a “tone debate” has developed. It concerns the question of how to conduct scientific debate effectively and ethically. How should scientists give critique without unnecessarily damaging relations? The increasing use of Facebook and Twitter by researchers has made this issue especially pressing, as these social technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for conversation between academics, but there is little formal control over the debate. In this article, we show that psychologists have tried to solve this issue with various codes of conduct, with an appeal to virtues such as humility, and with practices of self-transformation. We also show that the polemical style of debate, popular in many scientific communities, is itself being questioned by psychologists. Following Shapin and Schaffer’s analysis of the ethics of Robert Boyle’s experimental philosophy in the 17th century, we trace the connections between knowledge, social order, and subjectivity as they are debated and revised by present-day psychologists.

Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project

Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.

Les pratiques de recherche ouvertes en psychologie

Cet article vise à offrir une vision d’ensemble des récentes évolutions des pratiques de recherche en psychologie. Un rappel des différents symptômes de la crise de la réplicabilité (et de confiance) ayant affecté la psychologie sera suivi par une discussion approfondie et nuancée des facteurs responsables de cette situation. Il s’agira ensuite, en s’appuyant sur des illustrations et des ressources, de démontrer le rôle crucial des pratiques de recherche ouvertes comme moyen de résoudre ces difficultés. La connaissance et l’adoption de ces pratiques de recherche popularisées par le mouvement de la science ouverte sont indispensables afin de contribuer, via la transparence et l’ouverture, à l’effort collectif d’amélioration de la fiabilité et de la réplicabilité des résultats en psychologie.

Children of the (gender) revolution: A theoretical and empirical synthesis of how gendered division of labour influences fertility

Gender equity theories of fertility broadly predict that the lowest fertility in high-income settings will be seen in women facing a 'dual burden' of both paid and unpaid labour responsibilities, but that fertility will increase when male partners share domestic labour. Here we provide a critique of some gender equity theories of fertility in demography, and restate the hypothesis in terms of complementarity between partners. Further, we suggest authors use an interdisciplinary approach, such as integrating perspectives from evolutionary theory and the 'Traits-Desires-Intentions-Behaviour' framework, to provide some consistency to this diverse literature. Building on this theoretical synthesis, we perform a systematic review of 95 pieces of analysis. This broadly supports the idea that fertility will be low where women face a dual burden, which is particularly evident among macro-level studies, micro-level analyses investigating progression to subsequent children, and studies which do not use gender role attitudes as an independent variable.

Reproducible research into human chemical communication by cues and pheromones: learning from psychology's renaissance

Despite the lack of evidence that the 'putative human pheromones' androstadienone and estratetraenol ever were pheromones, almost 60 studies have claimed 'significant' results. These are quite possibly false positives and can be best seen as potential examples of the 'reproducibility crisis', sadly common in the rest of the life and biomedical sciences, which has many instances of whole fields based on false positives. Experiments on the effects of olfactory cues on human behaviour are also at risk of false positives because they look for subtle effects but use small sample sizes. Research on human chemical communication, much of it falling within psychology, would benefit from vigorously adopting the proposals made by psychologists to enable better, more reliable science, with an emphasis on enhancing reproducibility. A key change is the adoption of study pre-registration and/or Registered Reports which will also reduce publication bias. As we are mammals, and chemical communication is important to other mammals, it is likely that chemical cues are important in our behaviour and that humans may have pheromones, but new approaches will be needed to reliably demonstrate them. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Olfactory communication in humans'.