I recently went on a fact finding mission to the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science’s (SIPS) annual conference in Rotterdam. Whilst there, I got the chance to sit down and chat with a number of the society’s founding members (i.e., Simine Vasire, Rich Lucas, and Alex Holcombe) about lessons we may be able to learn from SIPS. Here are some of the key messages I took away:SIPS was launched at a conference held at the Centre for Open Science. Simine put up $10k of her startup money as collateral. Using conferences to work collaboratively on burning questions is an excellent use of time!They were impressed that we already had 50+ members. They held a conference before they had a single member.Their one main regret was not self-publishing Collabra. They were very impressed that we had found a solution to this problem.
Although they appreciate that there is a discussion to be had about the merits of Open Science, SIPS is very much a safe space for people who feel marginalised within current practice. They purposefully avoided inviting naysayers and critics and view the meet as an opportunity for a community to come together and take action, rather than endlessly debate the merits of everything. The executive board and I are working on plans for our first solo conference (likely to be in 2021) and on more pre conference events next year. I do not have a $10k startup fund to draw on, so if we want to see a meeting become a reality, we need to work together to make it happen. We will likely need to have doubled our membership base by this time next year to have the finances required to put down a deposit to hold a venue. As such, we need your support to spread the word and help shape and achieve our collective goals!
Diversity CommitteeThe Diversity Committee is finding its way and needs more members. Multiple ideas were generated on how to explore diversity within our group and in open science and kinesiology more broadly. The committee first sent out a list of readings about open science and diversity including: https://medium.com/@denalbz/reimagining-open-science-through-a-feminist-lens-546f3d10fa65https://www.americanscientist.org/article/open-science-isnt-always-open-to-all-scientistshttps://twitter.com/jfbonnefon/status/1099490635579576320?s=21,https://ocsdnet.org/
We discussed ways to engage our membership in discussions on diversity with potentially a STORK blog post and discussions between the ECR and Diversity committees.
The society as a whole has discussed barriers to membership cost and discussions regarding a second journal that would be a “gateway” for many into open access and kinesiology. The committee has also analysed the current membership to gain perspective on our numbers and diversity within the membership. These data are a starting point where we can then generate ideas on how to recruit additional members and improve our diversity. The committee would like to link with STORK executive board to develop a plan to gather and house membership data in order to track progress as the organization grows. The committee chair will be developing a blog post with our current numbers and breakdown to post on the STORK blog.
The Publication committee had an exceptionally active first six months. We formed the journal policies, documentation, and workflow for Registered Reports in Kinesiology (www.rrik.org), which is now accepting submissions. Please see the website for the full aims and scope, instructions for authors, and instructions for reviewers. This journal accepts only registered reports, but provides an outlet for the entire discipline of kinesiology and movement sciences. Please share broadly and consider submission. Our section editors have been elected and we will eventually elect three managing editors.
To learn more about the platform and become more familiar with it, we will need submissions. This is a learning process but we’re keen on getting started. The remainder of 2019 will be dedicated to creating a second journal, which will have similar policies as RRIK (e.g., data sharing, transparency, no decisions based on statistical significance), but would accept other formats (i.e., nonregistered reports). This will also provide a platform for metascience discussion. We discussed ways to engage our membership in discussions on diversity with potentially a STORK blog post and discussions between the ECR and Diversity committees.
SportRχiv is thriving with 105 submissions and counting. The quality of submissions is improving by providing authors with submission templates (https://osf.io/95fpe/), which clearly outline what is required of submissions to SportRxiv. A new development to the OSF platform is the ability to “withdraw” preprint/postprint manuscripts from a preprint server (SportRxiv included). This works similarly to retraction, wherein a withdrawal removes the article from SportRxiv but leaves behind a “tombstone” page where a description of why the article was withdrawn can be found. As of now, SportRxiv does not have an official withdrawal policy but this is being discussed, and will likely be similar to other preprint servers (https://blog.engrxiv.org/guidelines/).
Lastly, the greatest area of concern is cost containment since OSF will start charging preprint servers starting in 2020. We are working with all other OSF Preprint servers towards a collective fundraising effort. STORK will cover a portion of the costs involved with maintaining SportRxiv on the platform. We discussed ways to engage our membership in discussions on diversity with potentially a STORK blog post and discussions between the ECR and Diversity committees.
In its first six months, the inaugural Early Career Researcher (ECR) committee has assembled a dedicated interdisciplinary team who span the early-career trajectory: doctoral, immediately postdoctoral, transitioning to independent researcher/pre-tenured faculty. The role of the committee has been defined: to facilitate increased awareness, discussion and implementation of transparent, open and replicable research practices amongst ECRs in kinesiology and related fields. We have also specified the STORK definition of an ECR: anyone that identifies as (i) early career and (ii) a researcher! We do not favor a rigid definition and we appreciate that a temporal approach (e.g. time since PhD completion) is unlikely to take into account the diverse range of experiences and career trajectories of our members and future members worldwide.
We also recognize that some ECRs operate outside of traditional academic settings (e.g. industry researchers).
Within the committee, recent discussion has focused on the type of support STORK ECRs could
benefit from in regards to implementing transparent, open and/or replicable research practices, the challenges ECRs face in this context, and future directions for the ECR committee.
Progress so far has primarily been via ECR chair/committee involvement in wider STORK initiatives such a ‘meet and greet’ at ACSM 2019 and ongoing development of a survey of questionable research practices in Kinesiology. The ECR chair/committee also reached out to ECRs with specific expertise (research methods and LGBTQ+ inclusion), resulting in new members who now serve on the ECR or Diversity committee. Over the next three months, the committee will be working on producing tangible outcomes such as a resource covering the basics of how to implement open/replicable research practices as an individual or a lab, and a cheat sheet/FAQ/slide-deck to facilitate interactions on open/replicable research with teams or colleagues who are unfamiliar with these practices.