owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
開放科學教學教材
===
###### tags: `open science`
[toc]
# [Noba Psycho Courses](http://nobaproject.com/)
## [Why Science?](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/why-science)
### Scientific Advances and World Progress
- 科學發展促進現代世界的急遽變化
- [Edward Jenner](http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=240&Itemid=216): 1796年證實牛痘的功效~醫學史第一個成功的天花疫苗。建立開發傳染病疫苗的科學方法。
- [Fritz Haber](http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=441:haber-fertilizer&catid=195&Itemid=528): 發明化學肥料,增加農業收穫量。
- [Norman Borlaug](http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=116): 發明育種,改良農作物存活率,影響**綠色革命**。墨西哥在1964年之後,從小麥入口國變成出口國。
- 醫學到農業的科學成就改善了人類的生活條件。
- 二十世紀初至今的科學發展有顯著的數字變化:全球擁有電力的家戶數(今天已超過80%);全球有通訊設備的人口數(超過3/4的人口有個人手機);平均壽命延長(1900年全球平均47歲;2010全球平均79歲);[全球超過一半的國家,少於5%人口處於饑餓與營養不良狀況](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG);[教育普及提高青少年平均智商](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)。
### What is Science
> scientifically minded people try to figure out the natural world through testing and observation. 透過實驗與觀察了解自然界、人類行為的運作原理。
>
**[預防接種發展史](http://phtw.pixnet.net/blog/post/279639967-%E9%A0%90%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A5%E7%A8%AE%E7%B3%BB%E5%88%97%28%E4%B8%80%29%EF%BC%9A%E7%96%AB%E8%8B%97%E6%98%AF%E5%93%AA%E4%BE%86%E7%9A%84%E5%95%8A%EF%BC%9F%E5%BE%9E%E5%A4%A9%E8%8A%B1)**
1. _Systematic observation is the core of science_
- *系統化觀察*:使用有組織的測量機制,紀錄觀察對象的活動。
2. _Observation leads to hypotheses we can test_
- 可從觀察紀錄驗證原因的假設。
3. _Science is democratic_
- 觀察結果能促進公開討論。
4. _Science is cumulative_
- 科學發現的結果不斷累積更新。
<!---
實例:[社會助長](http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1306772/)
1. 如何進行系統化觀察?
2. 如何歸納可能原因?
3. 如何公開討論?
4. 如何累積新發現?
卡爾.波普:科學與偽科學
{%youtube -X8Xfl0JdTQ %}
--->
### Psychology as a Science
> By using behavioral measures and rating scales it is possible to measure thoughts and feelings. This is similar to how other researchers explore “invisible” phenomena such as the way that educators measure academic performance or economists measure quality of life.
例:**自我報告**、**即時回應評量**
先驅之一:**Francis Galton**
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Francis_Galton.jpg)
- 使用色盤配合自我報告,調查不同人種的色彩知覺。
- 以雙胞胎為研究對象,調查先天與後天因素導致的行為差異。開啟今日心理學先天-後天議題與研究取向(nature-nurture question).
**今日的心理學家同時使用多種測量方法,觀察一種人類感受或思考過程**
例:快樂感(happiness)
自陳式量表、記憶表述、神經生理紀錄
- 為何需要多種測量方法:
- 人類會假裝或錯估當下的個人感受
- 提高測量方法的可信度需要累積資料
### Why Open
- 公開討論
- 累積資料
### Psychological Science is Useful
> A growing body of research is concerned with determining which therapies are the most and least effective for the treatment of psychological disorders.以心理疾患的科學研究來說,臨床工作者投入研究是要了解各種治療方法能帶來的效益極限。
- cognitive behavioral therapies(認知行為治療): some can help many people suffering from depression and anxiety disorders, but some cmight be harmful.
- organizational psychology(組織心理學): some psychological interventions improve the productivity and satisfaction in the workplace.
- Human factor engineers(人因工程): increase the safety and utility of the products.
- Forensic sciences(鑑識科學): Understand the limits and unreliability of eyewitness testimony and memory could increase the validity of courtroom decisions.
### Ethics of Scientific Psychology
> Ethics (and Morality)倫理(與道德)
> Professional guidelines that offer researchers a template for making decisions that protect _research participants_(研究參與者) from potential harm and that help steer _scientists_ away from conflicts of interest or other situations that might compromise **the integrity of their research**(誠實的研究成果).
1. _Informed consent_(告知同意). Research participants know they are under observations. Research participants have a free choice to participate.
2. _Confidentiality_(信用). Researchers should not leak the information of participants without the agreement of the individual.
3. _Privacy_(隱私). Researchers should not observe people in **private places**. Researchers should not seek confidential information withouth consent.
4. _Benefits and Risk_(利益與風險). [Case of Edward Jenner](https://ethics.nctu.edu.tw/resource/list/4/#case1)
5. _Deception and Debrief_(隱暪與解說). In case the researchers have to prevent the participants behave unnaturally because of the prior information, the reseachers should debrief after the observation.
**從兩則造假的心理學案例,看到當事人完全沒有上述研究倫理問題。**
### Why Learn About Scientific Psychology?
[7 points](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/why-science#why-learn-about-scientific-psychology)
About sixth point, here is my version:
> 6. To learn how to evaluate the research _quality_ you hear or read about
## [Research Methods in Social Psychology](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology)
**social facilitation**: the earliest study of social psychology (Triplett, 1898). Example of systemantic observations.
社會心理學的第一個貢獻:**社會助長(social facilitation)**,一種行為與眾人一起做,表現比一個人做更突出。解釋為何有許多一窩蜂現象,並且不是人類獨有(Zajonc, Heingartner & Herman, 1969)。
心理學家如何做研究
{%youtube hFV71QPvX2I %}
### Research Methods in Social Psychology
systmatic observation/[anecdotal evidence](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-anecdotal-evidence)(系統性觀察/傳聞證言) -> [hypothesis](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-hypothesis)(假設) -> [operationalize](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-operationalize) the variables(操作化變項) -> [independent variable](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-independent-variable)(獨變項) and [dependent variable](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-dependent-variable)(依變項)
- 為什麼許多研究不只使有一種研究方法? Why researchers usually take many methods?
- 那種研究方法的成果最有價值? Which method produces the valuable result?
#### Laboratory Research
- Asch confformaity experiment(Asch, 1951)
![Examples of the cards used in the Asch experiment. The card on the left has a single line. The card on the right has three lines labeled A, B, and C. The line labeled "C" matches the length of the single line on the other card. Line "A" is clearly shorter and line "B" is clearly longer.](http://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/002/471/original.jpg)
- Culture of honor(Cohen et al., 1996)
- A culture empahsizes personal or family reputation.
- **Independent variables**: Participant variable (Southerners; Northerners); confederate's speech (publicly insult, privately insult, control)
- a cover story to take the participants' saliva sample: how their blood sugar levels would be monitored over a series of tasks.
- **Dependent variables**: confederate's rating; levels of hormone; decide shocks in stress test; participants rated the likelihood of a variety of ambiguously provocative scenarios escalating into a fight or verbal argument
![](http://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/002/017/original.png)
> (Researchers) run experiments where they can closely control situations and manipulate variables. Many social psychologists prefer [complex experimental designs](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-complex-experimental-designs) which have multiple independent and/or dependent variables. Now the [social neuroscience](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-social-neuroscience) is growing. Many researchers take the biological markers (e.g., hormones) and the neuroimaging signals (e.g., fMRI) as the operational variables.
#### Field Research
- Real-world situations. People may not know they are participating in the research.
- [Field experiment](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-field-experiment)
Alice and Paula(1972) observed if people who found coins in random assigned phonebooth would help the **confederate** dropped the items. **Only 1 out 25 of them bothered to help.**
- [naturalistic observation](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-naturalistic-observation)
(1)Cialdini et al. (1976) 研究*沾光現象(basking in reflected glory)* ~ 7所大學的學生在校隊贏球之後的數天,比輸球的學校有較多人穿校服。(2)Radesky et al.(2014)發現40/55帶小孩在速食店用餐的大人,越沉迷手機的大人越不容易回饋小孩行為甚至動粗。
- [experience sampling methods](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-experience-sampling-methods).
Larson et al (1994) recruited mothers and fathers who carried pagers for one week and reported their emotional states when beeped at random times during their daily activities at work or at home. The results showed that mothers reported experiencing more positive emotional states when away from home (including at work), whereas fathers showed the reverse pattern. At recent, [electronically activated recorders](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-electronically-activated-recorder-ear) make the experience sampling easier.
Field experiments usulay used the [random assignment](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-random-assignment). Natural observations and experience sampling do not depend on random assignment.
#### Survey Research
- [the World Values Survey](https://tfcfrg.ccf.org.tw/?action=data_detail&did=3986) 世界價值觀調查
- a nationally-representative survey in Germany (Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2016).
> A method of research that involves administering a questionnaire to respondents in person, by telephone, through the mail, or over the internet.
It is frequently used for the studies on individual and group differences in people’s feelings, attitudes, or behaviors.
- web-based survey platforms + participant recruitment platforms: diverse and representative
#### Subtle/Nonconscious Research Methods
- Implicit association test (IAT, Greenwald et al., 1998)
Check [Project implicit](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html)
- Social behavioral priming
> [terror management theory (TMT)](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-terror-management-theory-tmt): humans manage the anxiety that stems from the inevitability of death by embracing frameworks of meaning such as cultural values and beliefs. ([Pyszczynski et al., 2003](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-27)).
> COFF_ _ ; SK _ _ L Complete the words as you like.
> In a TMT study, participants in the mortality-primed group tend to fill in COFFIN and SKULL. And participants in the control group tend to fill inCOFFEE and SKILL.
> Professor priming ([Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-9))
> _... social psychologists often wish to measure or manipulate elements that are involuntary or nonconscious, such as when studying prejudicial attitudes people may be unaware of or embarrassed by._
#### Archival Research
- 為了調查影響汽車駕駛人違規行為的因素,向警方申請紀錄。
- [correlational research](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-correlational-research): race-based violence is associated with the health of the economy ([Beck & Tolnay, 1990](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-3); [Hovland & Sears, 1940](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-18))
- 今日許多大數據研究可歸為此類:例如[AI 可以幫助躁鬱、被霸凌的人嗎?](http://research.sinica.edu.tw/ai-multilingual-emotion-analysis-chen-yi-shin/)。但也有備受爭議的研究,例如[Kramer et al., 2014](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-20)透過臉書進行的情緒演染研究。
### Research Issues in Social Psychology
#### The Question of Representativeness
- [samples of convenience](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-samples-of-convenience) 社會心理學理論預設是普世的,能收集的資料是最方便取得的(西方世界的大學生),研究證據的普世性一直備受質疑。
- [WEIRD](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#vocabulary-weird-cultures)([Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-17)): Cultures that are **w**estern, **e**ducated, **i**ndustrialized, **r**ich, and **d**emocratic.
- 成長於非洲喀拉哈里沙漠的原住民,無法體驗[Müller-Lyer illusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Sarcone%E2%80%99s_Pulsatin_Star_%28Dynamic_M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion%29.gif)
> ... over time research has repeatedly demonstrated the important role that individual differences (e.g., personality traits, cognitive abilities, etc.) and culture (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) play in shaping social behavior.
#### Ethics in Social Psychological Research
Why ethics is matter? Think about Milgram’s ([1963](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-22)) experiments on obedience to authority and the Stanford prison study ([Haney et al., 1973](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/research-methods-in-social-psychology#reference-15))
[BBC:3分鐘了解「劍橋分析」風波](https://www.facebook.com/bbctrad/posts/2072913612725298)
[五大性格測驗](https://meetype.com/bigfive-test)
More about [Aleksandr Kogan](http://www.dailycal.org/2018/03/25/researcher-facebook-scandal-graduated-uc-berkeley/) 我的心得:新科技讓研究者迷失思辨研究倫理的覺察
從「劍橋分析」風波,思辨研究倫理原則的必要性:
1. Informed consent 如果研究者要收集特定情境之內的非匿名資料,研究參與者(受試者)有權利知道,並有權決定是否參與及撤銷資料。
2. Privacy 就算是在不與參與者直接接觸進行觀察,研究者必須保障不侵犯個人隱私。
3. Risks and Benefits 如果參與者會因參與研究曝露在有風險的情況,研究者必須事先告知。例如促發實驗可能會引發參與者的情緒反應;讓參與者觀賞引發負面情緒的影音。
4. Deception 為了保持研究條件的有效,而對參與者事前隱暪部分研究內容。通常只有四種狀況可事前隱暪: (a) when the benefits of the study outweigh the risks, (b) participants are not reasonably expected to be harmed, (c) the research question cannot be answered without the use of deception, and (d) participants are informed about the deception as soon as possible, usually through debriefing.
5. Debriefing 研究者必須於事後告知曝露於有風險條件的參與者,必須事前隱暪的理由。
- 20180317 [5000萬臉書用戶個資究竟如何被劍橋分析公司濫用?](https://udn.com/news/story/6811/3041037); [社群媒體的暗黑政治學](http://www.storm.mg/article/413450)
{%youtube rYTb-uaF5Z0 %}
## [The Replication Crisis in Psychology](http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/sau-chin-chen-new-textbook/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology)
- 有人宣稱在玉山山頂遇過**小飛俠**。如何證實真有其事?
- 嗅癌犬的測癌能力:[新聞稿](https://udn.com/news/story/7266/3717465?fbclid=IwAR2EXdsqgC-D6t5Xn8sXNFVwxG97QOsYnWOtygBXmHhV6DKIA03g4V8u_go);[官方網頁](http://www.sharp-biotech.com.tw/);[我的評論](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ref3XfABGFzR6nZq_DPA9-4RM_qLU_BL/view?usp=sharing)
科學的基礎:**重覆發現相同事實(the repeated findings of the same results)** 例:[重力波實驗](http://pansci.asia/archives/93578)
- 重覆科學發現(replication)的意義:避免把不存在的事當成證據(**偽陽性謬誤 false positives**)
- 無法重覆的科學發現,可能原因是是科學研究者故意作假,也可能是科學研究過程的瑕疵。 _延伸閱讀:[論文造假醜聞後⋯崩壞的,豈只是學術倫理](https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-falsified-papers)_
### 什麼是科學發現的再現(replication)
- 以團體服從實驗為例,了解直接再現(direct replication)與概念再現(conceptual replication)
![](http://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/002/727/original.jpg =400x)
- **直接再現**能確保第一次發現的現象與事物是經得起考驗的科學事實。
- **概念再現**能開拓科學事實背後的理論思維。
### 再現危機有多嚴重?
![](http://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/002/736/original.png =400x)
Open Science Collaboration (2015)
### 造成再現危機的可能原因
1. 研究資料是假的
2. 原始研究樣本數太少
3. 原始研究的發現在特定時空(e.g., 受測者條件)才能成功
4. 原始與再現研究的品質不良(無效的心理學將介紹*待澄清的研究操作*)
心理學知識傳播的潛在問題:能吸引大眾注意的新奇發現,常被有心人士當成有應用價值的訊息。當再現事實顯示證據不充分時,閱聽者該如何分辨?例:讀小說能增加同理心?[文章1](https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5071847-%E6%9C%80%E6%96%B0%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%EF%BC%9A%E9%96%B1%E8%AE%80%E5%B0%8F%E8%AA%AA%E6%9C%89%E5%8A%A9%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E5%90%8C%E7%90%86%E5%BF%83/),[文章2](https://pansci.asia/?s=%E5%90%8C%E7%90%86%E5%BF%83+%E5%B0%8F%E8%AA%AA)
### 無法再現的心理學研究案例
- metaphorical priming: (1) _stereotypes of intelligence_ could not enhance test performance (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998); (2) _spatial distance cues(plot points on graph paper)_ could not change the rating of family relatives (Williams & Bargh, 2008)
- 已浮出的心理學知識體系議題:Is this new issue for psychology? No systemantic replications in psychology.
### 為什麼再現研究是重要的
- 降低新奇發現的不確定性
- 激勵科學家探索新課題
{%youtube FpCrY7x5nEE %}
{%youtube 42QuXLucH3Q %}
### 解決方案
![](http://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/001/656/original.jpg =300x)
#### 公開平台
[![Psychfile drawer](http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/images/logo.png)](http://psychfiledrawer.org/)
[![](https://cdn.cos.io/static/images/cos_logo.png =150x)](https://cos.io/)
[![](https://replicationindex.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rindex-logo.jpeg =200x)](https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/)
#### 科學研究的系統性規劃
[註冊報告](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2017002/)
![](https://i.imgur.com/pYmXhCs.jpg =250x)
#### 教科書與學術期刊革新
[![](http://www.ctf.org/images/uploads/news/PLOS_one_logo-150px-h.png =200x)](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/)
<!---
[延伸閱讀:葉光輝~心理學研究可複製性危機的解方(?)](https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/bc4d3061-304c-449b-abfb-287359365902)
--->
# Flawed Psychological Sciences
插曲
![](https://i.imgur.com/MibJZWL.png)
## 1. Face Feedback Effect
### 故事來源
[Fritz Strack asks “Have I done something wrong”](https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/fritz-strack-asks-have-i-done-something-wrong/)
[Musings on Preregistration: The Case of the Facial Feedback Effect
](https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/musings-on-preregistration/)
### 故事大綱
- 心情不好時,咬支筆裝微笑會改善心情嗎?
看看心理學教科書怎麼說?
<!---
![](https://i.imgur.com/iCjlQlK.png)
![](https://i.imgur.com/3UeM9LK.png =40%x)
[台灣某雜誌的建議](https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E9%99%B0%E9%AC%B1%E6%BF%95%E5%86%B7%E6%98%93%E6%9C%89%E9%80%99%E6%AF%9B%E7%97%85-%E6%AF%8F%E5%A4%A9-%E5%B0%8D%E9%8F%A1%E5%AD%90%E5%92%AC%E7%AD%86-%E6%93%BA%E8%84%AB%E5%AE%83-064957162.html):每天咬一枝筆,讓嘴型呈現U字型至少15分鐘
--->
- [表情回饋效應(Facial Feeback Effect)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19775913_Inhibiting_and_Facilitating_Conditions_of_the_Human_Smile_A_Nonobtrusive_Test_of_the_Facial_Feedback_Hypothesis) (Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988)
“*即使人類的臉部表情不是展現真實的情緒,裝出來還是會影響自身的情緒反應。*”(Wagenmakers et al., 2016)。
*第一個實驗(Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988)這樣做:*
![微笑 vs. 嘟嘴](https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/image1.png =80%x)
![](https://i.imgur.com/oRiPXXG.png)
> n1 + n2 = 91; *p* = 0.0338。測得相同結果並達到90%考驗力,約需要組間測量誤差 = 1.32
- [無法重現原始結果的註冊再現報告](http://pps.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/21/1745691616674458)
![](https://i.imgur.com/kaFwLWZ.png)
[註冊再現研究是什麼?](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2016004/)
- [Fritz Strack回應無法再現的表情回饋效應](http://pps.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/21/1745691616674460)
1. RRR之前五年有20份獨立研究發現明顯的表情回饋效應。
2. 因為要排除參與者的事前知識,有四分之一的參與者資料在實驗完成後不被納入分析。
3. 參與RRR的17個研究團隊,只有三個招募非大學生的成人參與者。挑出來計算的效應明顯大於其餘14個團隊的結果。
4. RRR團隊使用的漫畫不夠有趣。
5. **有攝影機紀錄實驗過程**。
6. 故意逼出不顯著的實驗結果。
- 其他心理學家如何回覆Fritz Strack的回應
1. RRR之前五年有20份獨立研究發現明顯的表情回饋效應。
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ 有能改變實驗結果的中介變項存在。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 20份獨立研究是**概念性再現**;加上抽屜效應(File drawer effect)導致無差異的研究不易發表。
2. 因為要排除參與者的事前知識,有四分之一的參與者資料在實驗完成後不被納入分析。
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ 其他研究也存在很難排除有事前知識的參與者。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 攝影機有助確認參與者按照指示,含住原子筆作答。
3. 參與RRR的17個研究團隊,只有三個招募非大學生的成人參與者。挑出來計算的效應明顯大於其餘14個團隊的結果。
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ 反而突顯第一個實驗結果是被尚待確認的中介變項放大。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 這是用不良的操作手段–挑賣相好的結果(cherry picking)–進行嚴謹的學術討論。
4. RRR團隊使用的漫畫不夠有趣。
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ 這點主張無事實基礎,論點薄弱。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 漫畫材料是事前請另一批參與者評估,並非以主觀感受挑選。
5. **有攝影機紀錄實驗過程**。
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ 這是很有可能的中介變項。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 同意有影響,但不認為是不良的設計。
6. 故意逼出不顯著的實驗結果。
![](https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/image2.png =70%x)
[Uli Schimmack](https://www.facebook.com/uli.schimmack?lst=1439355296%3A513886686%3A1526347937)~ p-hacking確實會導致樣本數與效果量的負相關,但不能說兩者出現正相關是反過來操作的結果。
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)~ 註冊研究就是要排除p-hacking等不良操作,Strack的主張像是質疑註冊研究會助長另一種不良操作?(烏賊戰術?)
- [無法重現是**攝影機**的問題?](http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspa0000121)
Noah et al.(2018) 採用RRR的做法,增加無攝影機的條件。找200名以色列大學生進行實驗:
![](https://i.imgur.com/qqiHrJR.jpg =80%x)
各組有40到43人。Noah等人的實驗資料公開於[這裡](https://osf.io/xt39q/)。
論文的報告結果(我從公開資料檢查的結果有些出入):
||牙齒含筆|嘴唇含筆|FFE|
|---|---|---|---|
|有攝影機|5.21(1.46)|5.15(1.74)|0.06|
|無攝影機|5.75(1.35)|4.92(1.46)|0.83|
[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers](https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers)評論:Noah等人收集資料前有預先註冊(preregistration),但是沒有完全按照註冊的方針分析資料。例如以未預先說明且不夠強的統計指標(貝氏因子),宣稱無攝影機的情況能發現表情回饋效應。
- 還在學習知識的同學,如何看待表情回饋效應?
1. 任何一種支持/不支持的實驗結果,是怎麼做出來的?
2. 宣稱表情回饋效應應用價值的任何說法,論述者是根據什麼資訊來源?
## 2. Power Posing
**有看過這段演講影片嗎?**
{%youtube McE-AuemcFg %}
演講之後出現的正面科普文[#1](http://pansci.asia/archives/39308);[#2](http://pansci.asia/archives/46898);[#3](http://pansci.asia/archives/98176)
<!---
**假研究讓你變有名**
{%youtube SMsibivgWnc %}
--->
簡單了解power posing帶出什麼問題:
{%youtube Mc4pS7KeYWY %}
我曾經寫過的網誌[#1](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2016005e01/);[#2](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2017006/)
他者觀點:[海苔熊](https://www.facebook.com/notes/%E6%B5%B7%E8%8B%94%E7%86%8A/%E8%AE%80%E5%A7%BF%E5%8B%A2%E6%B1%BA%E5%AE%9A%E4%BD%A0%E6%98%AF%E8%AA%B0%E5%85%B6%E5%AF%A6%E5%A7%BF%E5%8B%A2%E7%84%A1%E6%B3%95%E6%B1%BA%E5%AE%9A%E4%BD%A0%E6%98%AF%E8%AA%B0/758483860981151/);[蔡依橙](https://i-chentsai.innovarad.tw/2016/09/power_poses.html)
看看原始論文(Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010)的結果:
![](https://i.imgur.com/UgsCx9d.png)
> $F(1,39)=4.29, p = 0.045$
> $F(1,38)=7.45, p = 0.0096$
> $\chi^2(1) = 3.86, p = 0.049$
> $F(1,41) = 9.53, p = 0.0036$
[p-hacking模擬器](http://shinyapps.org/apps/p-hacker/)
- 為何有人不認同開放科學的主張與措施?
|質疑方主張|質疑方論點|參考來源|
|---|---|---|
|開放措施非常態科學活動|在社群網站發表批評言論如同霸淩。|[A1](http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-fiske-methodological-terrorism-2016-9);[A2](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html)|
|約束研究操作自由度不利新想法的誕生|許多改變世人觀念的證據,來自不按牌理的研究結果。|[B1](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/pre-registration-would-put-science-in-chains/2005954.article);[B2](https://sites.google.com/site/speechskscott/SpeakingOut/willpre-registrationofstudiesbegoodforpsychology);[B3](https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/01/21/for-better-science-call-off-revolutionaries/8FFEmBAPCDW3IWYJwKF31L/story.html)|
|再現研究的情境條件被輕忽|即使是直接再現,換到不同地方,由不同人員操作就有差異。|[C1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003252/);[C2](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2515245917740427)|
# Scientic Frauds
![](https://i.imgur.com/efuKwMR.png)
## [台灣學術倫理教學課程](http://ethics-p.nctu.edu.tw/)
- 學術誠信六項核心價值觀(The International Center for Academic Integrity, 2014; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016; UK Research Integrity Office, 2009)
- 誠實 Honesty — 透過在學習、教學、研究和服務中堅持知識和個人誠實追求真理和知識。
- 信任 Trust — 培養互相信任的氛圍,鼓勵自由交流思想,使所有人能夠發揮他們的最大潛能。
- 公平 Fairness — 建立明確的標準、慣例和程序,在學生、教師和管理人員的互動中體現公平公正。
- 尊重 Respect — 認識到參與是學習過程的自然屬性,尊重各種各樣的意見和想法。
- 責任 Responsibility — 提倡個人責任,面對不法行為時要有所行動。
- 勇氣 Courage — 除了上述五項核心價值觀,更要將這些價值觀轉化為行動,當面對壓力和逆境時,應該勇敢地面對,而這些都是需要決心、承諾與勇氣。
- 請留意Diederik Stapel與Brian Wansink,體現或違反那些價值?
## Diederik Stapel
![](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRG04F3zV8gqDXUF-D-8zfy06iEYAzqsRSv0gfcX3KJjUSLvqLQ)
### [New York Times採訪Diederik Stapel中譯](https://www.guokr.com/article/437083/?page=2)
### Diederik Stapel的學術不端被揭發前的發跡過程
1991 Psychology and Communications M.A., University of Amsterdam
1997 Social Psychology Ph.D, University of Amsterdam(UvA).
> Ph.D thesis: Assimilation (how abstract concepts prime human behaviors); Contrast (how people compare themselves with the concrete examples)
Assimilation(同化效應):我們遇到新經驗,會用舊有經驗的抽象架構評估。
Contrast(對比效應):因為遇到某個特徵突出的人事物,我們傾向低估同一種人事物的這項特徵。
Diederik Stapel的博士論文在一次實驗同時發現兩種效應。
2000-2006 Faculty of Psychology, University of Groningen(UG).
> Unconscious social priming; Start making fake data.
2006-2011 Faculty of Psychology, University of Tiburg(UT). Founder of the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research. **Lecturer of research ethics**.
2009 **Career Trajectory Award**, Society of Experimental Social Psychology.
2010 Dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty, University of Tiburg.
### Diederik Stapel學術不端的揭發過程
2010 spring: (1)一位曾與Stapel合作的研究生A懷疑Stapel給的數據是捏造的,但無法取得原始資料;(2)同校某位新進教師B得知研究生的經歷,參加Stapel的實驗室例行討論會,注意到Stapel的實驗成功率出奇之高;
2011 spring: (1)教師B與Stapel合作一項行為經濟學研究,發現明顯的捏造痕跡,但是這份研究從未正式發表;(2)研究生A的朋友研究生C檢查歷年與Staple合作的學生與博士後論文實驗數據,有明顯的複製貼上痕跡。
2011 August: (1)研究生A與研究生C於倫敦的研討會向當時的心理系系主任Marcel Zeelenberg,告知掌握到Stapel捏造數據的證據;(2)Zeelenberg返家後邀請Stapel私下對質,結束後告知校長Philip Eijlander;(3)校長約見Stapel談話,一週後宣佈開除Stapel,啟動調查程序,清查Stapel曾發表的論文研究資料。
![](https://webwijs.uvt.nl/photos/776750.jpg?1200399272)
2011 October 31: (1)UT發佈初步調查結果,證實2011年四月發表於Science的論文資料造假,該篇論文於12月被撤銷。(2)阿姆斯特丹大學撤銷Diederik Stapel的博士學位。
2011 November: 三校聯合調查確認有55篇論文涉嫌捏造數據(一年後總計有58篇),包括10篇博士論文,與Stapel合作論文的博士生都未涉及造假,可保留學位,但是論文必須被撤銷。調查委員會認為縱容Stapel長期造假的主因是“a general culture of careless, selective and uncritical handling of research and data.”.
### Diederik Stapel被揭露的一些造假行徑
> 任教UG時,第一次研究結果不如預期,開始篡改部分量表分數。這份研究於2004年成功出版。
>
> 烏得勒支火車站:研究環境髒亂程度與種族歧視的關係,2011年發表於Science,之後被發現無符合 論文描述的研究場景,資料全是Stapel自行編造。
>
> "資本主義"行為促發:請受試者填寫與"消費"有關的問卷,同時享用巧克力。巧克力被擺在印有"資本主義"的杯子或印無關字詞的杯子,預期"資本主義"的杯子吃的巧克力比較多。雖未發表,但被揭露是Stapel自已填寫所有問卷。
>
> 十歲兒童的 "情感認同":請孩童完成一幅著色畫,一半是哭泣的人臉、另一半是無表情的人臉,完成後給予糖果,觀察孩童與他人分享糖果的情況。UT的合作同事寫論文時想看原始資料,但被婉拒,這位同事並未舉報Stapel。
### Diederik Stapel的表白(造假者的人格剖析)
2012年,Stapel出版荷文自傳“Ontsporing”("出軌")。2014年UG博士生Nick Brown完成[英文譯本"Faking Science"("造假的科學")](http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/),全本上網公開。以下整理紐時訪問與個人自傳。
- 無人發現的僥倖心態
> "I tried to act tough and pretended to be shocked at these terrible accusations. I was nonchalant and dismissive. After all, if nobody’s gossiping about your research, it’s probably not very good. I asked him for whatever specific details he had and tried to counter them; after all, what evidence did they have? But inside my head it was as if the flimsy structure of my secret world, the walls and floors that I had casually erected over the previous ten years, was slowly starting to collapse."
>
> "What could they have found out? Everything? Surely not. Nobody would believe everything, surely? Nobody believes everything. Maybe I still had a chance? This was too big, too terrible, too weird; too big to fail, as they used to say about the banks. I’ll come up with something. I’m a lucky guy. It’ll all turn out OK. I can talk my way out of this situation. But it turned out that couldn’t."
> **Stapel recalled the night he was accused fraud**
- 追求成就的誘惑
> “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth.”
>
> “When you live your life and suddenly something extreme happens, your whole life becomes a bag of possible explanations for why you are here now.”
>
> "I really, really wanted to be really, really good. I wanted to be published in the best journals and speak in the largest room at conferences. I wanted people to hang on my every word as I headed for coffee or lunch after delivering a lecture."
>
> "I felt very alone. I was alone in my tastefully furnished office at the University of Groningen. I’d taken extra care when closing the door, and made my desk extra tidy. Everything had to be neat and orderly. No mess."
> **Stapel explained his personality**
- 要讓賣相好看所以動點手腳,在這個世界是被允許的
> “People have lost faith in the church, but they haven’t lost faith in science. My behavior shows that science is not holy. What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a busines.“
> “The cookie jar was on the table without a lid”
> **Stapel explained his motivation to make data**
- 我只是修改一些小數點之後的數字
> "I opened the file with the data that I had entered and changed an unexpected 2 into a 4; then, a little further along, I changed a 3 into a 5. It didn’t feel right. I looked around me nervously. The data danced in front of my eyes."
> **Stapel described how he faked data**
- 科學同行都期盼新奇有趣的發現
> "You need to be able to say that this is completely new and exciting, but it’s very likely given what we know so far.”
> **Stapel described the culture of sceince**
### Diederik Stapel的同業反省
Ap Dijksterhuis: "the field was making a sustained effort to remedy the problems that have been brought to light by Stapel’s fraud."
Promoting Open data
## 從Stapel的案子,我們能學到什麼?
Diederik Stapel用假資料打造的研究成果,會如何影響人類生活?
為何熟知倫理守則與行為實踐不是同一回事?
- 延伸閱讀
[The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology](https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10970.html)
## Brian Wansink
### Wansink背景介紹
[個人履歷表](http://www.brianwansink.com/uploads/6/0/2/8/60286459/wansink_vita_2-19-16.pdf)
[有關Brian Wansink的中文科普文章](https://pansci.asia/?s=Wansink)
![Wansink展示"無底碗"研究設備](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2018-02/22/15/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/sub-buzz-15465-1519331445-2.jpg)
<!---
Introduction to "Bottomless Soup Bowl Experiment"
{%youtube 13Z9OxncApY %}
--->
### **2016 Nov ~ 2017 Jan 事件蘊釀期**
Sloppy Food Science (CS09)
{%youtube u1I6p851rLI %}
[blog post(archived)](https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no)
一句話引來專家起底:"This cost us a lot of time and our own money to collect. There's got to be something here we can salvage because it's a cool (rich & unique) data set."
[GRIM test by Nick Brown and James Heathers](https://peerj.com/preprints/2064/)
[GRIMMER test by Jordan Anaya](https://peerj.com/preprints/2400)
[SPRITE: Sample Parameter Reconstruction via Iterative TEchniques](https://peerj.com/preprints/26968/)
- **2017 Jan ~ 2017 Apr 事件爆發**
[Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab](https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-017-0167-x)
[Wansink's response to statistical heartburn](https://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/research-statement-april-2017)公開被批評的四篇論文原始資料,提出修正數據。
[Phase 1 summary](http://www.timvanderzee.com/the-wansink-dossier-an-overview/)
[我為這段時間重要發展寫的網誌](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2017006/)
### **2017 Apr ~ 2018 Sep**
撤稿與勘誤
一開始被挑出問題的四篇pizzagate論文,一篇被撤銷,三篇接受勘誤。
Retracted papers:(1)Wansink, Brian & Se-Bum Park (2002);(2)**Siğirci, Ö., & Wansink, B. (2015)** ~ one of pizzagate papers;(3)Sigirci, O., Rockmore, M., & Wansink, B. (2016);(4)**Wansink, B., Just, D. R., & Payne, C. R. (2012)** ~ Theoretical basis of SLM;(5)Wansink and Westgren (2003) ~ “unreliable data” in a table;
[中文譯電:從實驗數據「編出」熱門論文 美名校教授爆醜聞](https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%BE%9E%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E6%95%B8%E6%93%9A-%E7%B7%A8%E5%87%BA-%E7%86%B1%E9%96%80%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87-%E7%BE%8E%E5%90%8D%E6%A0%A1%E6%95%99%E6%8E%88%E7%88%86%E9%86%9C%E8%81%9E-223950563.html)
至2018年二月底止,已有6+1篇論文被撤稿。其中被撤稿兩次的論文[見此](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743512003222)。這篇論文是**[The Smarter Lunchrooms Movement](https://www.smarterlunchrooms.org/)**的學理基礎。
"_descriptive branding will not only make an eater more aware of the food, but will “also raise one’s taste expectations,_"
<!---
案外案
[被吃掉的減肥課程](https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-kickstarter-weight-loss?utm_term=.emVrdw1j60#.vh6Ly3P2eK)
--->
- 評論
James Heathers: [Why We Find And Expose Bad Science](https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-we-find-and-expose-bad-science-e47387a0e333)
"Because, after science as a modern commercial enterprise confused _producing knowledge_ with _producing research_, the ability to be deeply critical of what we read suffered hugely, and I think that’s a monumental problem."
[JAMA open the warnings for readers](https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/13/caught-our-notice-jama-warns-readers-about-all-of-brian-wansinks-papers-in-its-journals/)
- 2018/9/19-20
JAMA編輯委員公佈新增6篇撤稿論文,至此總共13篇已發表的論文被撤稿,被撤稿的論文皆與「聰明午餐間計畫」有關。Wansink隔日宣布將於2019/6/30退休,退休前不進行任何研究與教學活動,全力協助校方清查過去研究的資料。
[Brian Wansink committed misconduct and announced retirement](https://retractionwatch.com/2018/09/20/beleaguered-food-marketing-researcher-brian-wansink-announces-his-retirement-from-cornell/)
## 從Wansin的案子,我們能學到什麼?
# [Paywall: The Business of Scholarship](https://paywallthemovie.com/)
- [影片下載網頁](https://archive.org/details/PaywallTheBusinessOfScholarshipFinalMovieMastered)
- [中文字幕](https://github.com/SCgeeker/Paywall_CH_Subtitles)
### Group discussion note
需要open data 的研究
研究報告的完整性與真實性
再現研究的規模與規範
# [Introduction to Open Science](https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/node/2076)
本講內容取自[開放科學公開教科書](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/)第一章:開放科學的基礎組件
## [開放概念與原則](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/02OpenScienceBasics/01OpenConceptsAndPrinciples.html)
### 簡介
“經由合作網路分享與發展透明且可取用的科學知識”(Vicente-Sáez & Martínez-Fuentes 2018)
**目的**:提昇科學研究的嚴謹性(rigor)、可解釋範圍(accountibility)、與可重製程度(reproducibility)。改變現在的科學研究模式、增加從事研究人員的多樣性、改進評價科學成果的方法。
**原則**:科學知識的生產與傳播應該是**包容、公正、平等、共享**
**開放的定義**:“開放的資料與內容能與任何人士共享、為任何目的而自由地使用與改造。”
為達成開放,需要多樣化實作方案,歐盟FORSTER整理一系列方案網路 (Pontika et al., 2015):
![](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/Images/image_0.png)
![](https://www.nuigalway.ie/media/thumbnail_image001.png)
Fecher與Friesike (2013)整理所有實作方案要落實的想法,可分成五個方向。也可以說各種實作方案來自五個流派:
![Five Open Science schools of thought (Fecher and Friesike, 2014)](https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/sites/default/files/images/5SchoolsofThought.png)
- 民主流(Democratic school): 主張學術知識與資料應讓人人都能自由取得。
- 實務流(Pragmatic school): 主張研究人員需要透過合作提昇研究過程與成果的透明度。
- 基礎建設流(Infrastructure school): 主張建立與經營提昇科學研究協作與透明度的平台及服務。
- 公眾流(Public school): 主張公眾參與科學研究的權利,科學研究人員也需要讓研究內容更容易讓大眾了解。
- 評鑑流(Measurement school): 主張建立能評估科學研究過程品質的新指標,取代只評量成果的傳統指標。
### 與開放科學的關係
- 推廣開放科學的價值要從改變科研文化的階層與保守特性著手
- 現在各國科研發展機制尚未認知或適應開放與協作的重要性
- 要讓科研人員採用實作方案,除了改善大環境,也要保障個人職涯成就
## 開放取用(Open Access)
- [Plan S](https://www.coalition-s.org/)
- 開放科學公開教科書的[摘要](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/open-access-to-published-research-results)
- 台灣師大圖書館的[中文介紹](http://www.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/database/oa.jsp)
- 台大圖書館的[掠奪型期刊相關研究與報導](http://tul.blog.ntu.edu.tw/archives/22034)
- Self-Archiving platforms: [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/), [PsyArXiv](https://psyarxiv.com/), [chinaxiv](http://www.chinaxiv.org/home.htm), ...
![](https://blobscdn.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-L9tXFxt2NTQml3C-9jM%2F-L9tXJsRB5HFHmHyLD1v%2F-L9tXQ0wCNzWGgbWcGfV%2F02_open_access_archives.png?generation=1523531234758209&alt=media)
- OA journals index: [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/), [Directory of Open Access Books](https://doabooks.org/), [Knowledge Unlatched](http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/), [SHERPA/RoMEO](http://sherpa.mimas.ac.uk/romeo/index.php)
- Hackers' OA: [Sci-Hub](https://sci-hub.tw/)
- 節省處理費的OA經營模式:[SCOAP3 Initiative](https://scoap3.org/);[Open Library of Humanities.](https://www.openlibhums.org/)
## OA實作
- [TCU library](http://www.library.tcu.edu.tw/)
- Impact factor煉成途徑
- 商營文獻典藏庫:[ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/); [airiti library](http://www.airitilibrary.com/)
- 文獻檢索平台:[Web of Science](https://apps.webofknowledge.com/SCIELO_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=SCIELO&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=E4S8KiqmrChVnpkgBGx&preferencesSaved=&highlighted_tab=SCIELO); [Scopus](http://taiwan.elsevier.com/ElsevierDNN/%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81/%E7%B7%9A%E4%B8%8A%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81/SciVerseScopus/tabid/448/Default.aspx); [PubMed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/); [Google scholar](https://scholar.google.com.tw/)
- 自我典藏資源庫:[PsyArXiv](https://psyarxiv.com/)
- 運用[Zotero](http://scchen.com/zh/post/zotero/)管理自我典藏
- 主題探索~ TBA
<!---
## 插曲:如何養成良好的知識寫作習慣
- 知識性文章的功能:讓讀者了解作者對於某個主題的**見解**。
- 見解要建立在已經存在的**人物言行**或**人為創作**之上。
- **引用**與**引述**顯現作者對既存言行創作的認識。
- 認識越充分,見解越具說服力。
- **引用** ~ 改寫他人的見解。參考[宜家效應](http://scchen.com/zh/post/preregister-ikea_effect-comment/)
- **引述** ~ 摘錄/節譯他人創作內容。參考[心理學理論失效的十大主因](http://scchen.com/zh/post/why_psychology_failed/);[心理科普的反省](https://www.facebook.com/notes/hoha-ho/%E5%BF%83%E7%90%86%E7%A7%91%E6%99%AE%E7%9A%84%E5%8F%8D%E7%9C%81/1624242041028594/)
- **引用**要註明出處;**引述**除了註明出處,也要讓讀者能區隔作者與他人的文字。
- 寫正式文章,出處除了要在文內註明,也要在文末整理出處的**文獻資料**。
- 文獻資料的必要元素有**作者姓名**、**公開年份**、**創作物標題**、**創作物發表平台名稱**。
## 開放科學導論報告寫作說明
- 從[開放科學的基礎組件](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/02OpenScienceBasics/)選擇一個老師有講授的單元,與一個老師沒有講授的單元。
- 根據該單元的學習目標(Learning Objects)與學習重點(Learning Outcomes),設定自已要針對那些目標與重點提出見解,目標與重點至少一種即可。
- 各單元的關鍵知識(Knowledge & Skills)與問題集(Questions, obstables, and commom misconceptions),是形成見解的第一波參考資訊,可延伸查詢其他可參考資料。在個人報告中以引用或引述呈現。
--->
## [開源軟體](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/open-research-software-and-open-source)
### [什麼是開源軟體](https://opensource.org/osd)
- 這份軟體能下載安裝嗎?
- 這份軟體能在任何平台安裝使用嗎?
- 這份軟體有使用限制嗎?
- 有提供源始碼讓有開發能力者檢查嗎?
- 完整的源始碼開發紀錄可公開檢閱嗎?
- 這份軟體的執行條件的描述是否詳細?
- 這份軟體的最低執行條件是不是合理的?
### 開源軟體範例
[InkScape](https://inkscape.org/); [開發平台](https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape)
[HackMD](https://hackmd.io/)
### 開源軟體公開管道
[Github](https://github.com)
[Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/)
### 如何選擇開放授權
[choose a license](https://choosealicense.com/)
### [開源硬體](http://openhardware.science/global-open-science-hardware-roadmap/)
範例:[科學Maker ~ 手機顯微鏡](http://scimage-tw.blogspot.com/)
## 開放資料
### [開放研究材料與資料](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/open-research-data-and-materials)
[FAIR 公平原則](https://www.force11.org/fairprinciples)
- Findable (可搜尋) ~ Data publishing
- Accessible (可取用) ~ Data citation; Data packaging; Data brokers(Sharing sensitive and proprietary data; De-identified and synthetic data)
- Interoperable (可探勘) ~ DataTags; Open Materials
- Re-usable (可循環利用)~ Protocols; Notebooks, containers, software, and hardware
![](https://blobscdn.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-L9tXFxt2NTQml3C-9jM%2F-L9tXJsRB5HFHmHyLD1v%2F-L9tXR24Bsm18dlZ5Wo6%2F02_open_research_data_material.png?generation=1523531246453468&alt=media)
### [可重製資料](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/reproducible-research-and-data-analysis)
![research cycle](https://blobscdn.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-L9tXFxt2NTQml3C-9jM%2F-L9tXJsRB5HFHmHyLD1v%2F-L9tXVYQ0Pxd5FzUNZdF%2F02_reproducible_research_data_analysis.png?generation=1523531258635507&alt=media)
![issue](https://blobscdn.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-L9tXFxt2NTQml3C-9jM%2F-L9tXJsRB5HFHmHyLD1v%2F-L9tXVYcpm1e1zRcKkyS%2Fimage_2.png?generation=1523531257743616&alt=media)
### 建立可重製資料的步驟
1. 事前計畫
2. 保持研究過程的紀錄
3. 以開放授權分享資料
4. 透過開放取用途徑提出報告
## [開放的教育資源](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/02OpenScienceBasics/11OpenEducationalResources.html)
### 簡介
- 威廉與拉姆森基金會(William and Flora Hewlett Foundation)的開放教育資源(OER)宣言:*經由公共平台或公開授權,讓人們能無償且無限地透過任何媒介取用、改造與散播教學、學習與研究材料*。
### 與開放科學的關係
- 許多開放教育資源建構於開放的研究成果,遵守開放科學原則的研究者應保持研究成果的開放,有利 教育資源循環使用。
- [開放科學資源循環](http://wikieducator.org/OER_Handbook/educator/OER_Lifecycle):發現(Find) -> 組建(Compose) -> 改造(Adapt) -> 使用(Use) -> 分享(Share)
### 推薦線上課程
Open Science MOOC 模組
(1). [Open Principle](https://eliademy.com/catalog/oer/module-1-open-principles.html)
(5). [Open Research Software and Open Source](https://eliademy.com/catalog/catalog/product/view/sku/02d7338a7e)
## 設計推廣課程
[教材模組](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/examples-and-practical-guidance#example-exercises-including-materials)
目標對象:一般民眾
#### 課程設計:白話解釋開放科學(Plain language explanations)
#### 上課方式/進行時間(Format, time needed)
小團體 2-3小時
#### 主題(Topic)
- [公民科學家與科學傳播](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/citizen-science)
- [協作平台](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbook.io/book/open-science-basics/collaborative-platforms)
#### 學習目標(Learning objectives)
- 創作宣傳標語,對現代科學有基本認識的人都能注意、理解開放科學的宗旨與前進策略。
- 激發開放科學促進者的宣傳創意。
#### 操作內容(Exercise description)
1. 自我介紹:來上課的理由;目前知道的開放科學;曾經有無法取得科學資料的不愉快經驗;對這門課有何期待
2. 講述/影片欣賞,片後討論。實際操作的畫面;與專業人士的訪談;詳細的專有名詞差異。
3. 回饋活動:講師請學員在一張便條紙寫下學習心得
#### 教具或教材(Materials and tools needed)
- 相關主題的操作示範影片
- 專業人士訪談紀錄片
- 專有名詞解釋動畫
- 一面分享牆
#### 先備知識(Level of prior knowledge needed)
- 藝馨:上課前先知道重要名詞與議題;
- 榮澤:對付費牆有些反思;
- 思安:有聽過重要名詞;
#### 課後收穫(Things to bear in mind)
- 藝馨:(1)了解為什麼有開放科學推廣運動,與其重要性。了解期刊論文的開放程度,非學者了解如何取得開放資訊。(2)開放目的->期刊論文開放標->如何獲取資源。
- 榮澤:(1)理解以期刊論文開放標準,非學者也可以評估研究品質。(2)理解開放資源平台與開放論文如何整何。
- 思安:(1)認識開放資源平台。(2)
#### 與其他課程的關聯(How to adapt for other purposes)
<!---
- [九個經典認知心理學實驗重製研究](https://osf.io/ghv6m/)與[人發系的心理學實驗法課程](https://osf.io/dxufk/)。
- [協作再現與教育專案CREP](https://osf.io/wfc6u/)的[2018計畫](https://osf.io/n5b3w/) ~ [微信公眾號開放科學社群的中文翻譯](https://hackmd.io/T-mRCJBnSKqZtjXsoBtYlg?view)
--->
## [協作平台](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/02OpenScienceBasics/07CollaborativePlatforms.html)
### 簡介
- 透過網路服務,四散天涯各處的研究人員可以合作撰寫報告、設計研究、分析資料。
- 虛擬研究環境(virtual research environments),如[OSF](https://osf.io/)。OSF提供基本專案管理架構,透過外掛(add-on)整合各類資源。
<!---
- 特別研究領域透過共享式平台,分享研究資料。例如[清華大學果蠅大腦圖譜資料庫](http://www.flycircuit.tw/modules.php?name=introduction&parent=introduction&op=introduction)。
--->
### 臨時聯盟
- [APS RRR](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replication) ~ [中文介紹](http://scchen.com/zh/post/text_2016004/) 單件/多件研究;多實驗室同步進行
- Many Labs: 多項研究;多實驗室同步進行
- [Many Labs 1](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/a000001)
- [Many Labs 2](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918810225)
- [Many Labs 3](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300123)
- [PS RR](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716)
- [SSNS](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z)
- [預測市場](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A2%84%E6%B5%8B%E5%B8%82%E5%9C%BA)
### 共識結盟
- 透過專案引導團隊與個人合作
[![](http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y524/Jon_Grahe/CREP%20Logo%203_zps5xwlbtxu.png =200x)](https://osf.io/wfc6u/)
[![](https://s33.postimg.cc/l0t3luze7/Study_Swap.png =150x)](https://osf.io/view/StudySwap/)
[![](https://psysciacc.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/cropped-cropped-psa.png =150x)](https://psysciacc.org/)
### 未來影響
- 累積可查核的公開資料:[Curate](http://curatescience.org/);[MetaLab](http://metalab.stanford.edu/)
- 促進註冊研究的推進
![](https://cdn.cos.io/media/images/registered_reports.width-800.png)
<!---
### 與開放科學的關係
- 各種領域跨國合作已經行之有年,協作平台能將合作的層次往開放創意(open innovation)推進。
- 認識這個單元介紹的各種平台及資源,能了解協作平台的最新發展。
--->
## Recommended Readings
Spellman et al.(2018) https://osf.io/gv6r4/
Table 2: How Open Science Can Remedy Problems Arising from the Research Process
| Stage of Research Process | Sources of Error & Bias | Open Science Solution |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Research planning | - Quantity >> Quality </br> - Emphasis on smallest publishable unit </br> - Underpowered designs | - Changing norms and reward structures </br> - Technological solutions |
| Data collection and methods reporting | - Optional stopping </br> - Failure to disclose all treatments, covariates, and dependent measures | - 21-word solution </br> - Open materials </br> - Open workflow </br> - Pre-registration |
| Data analysis and results reporting | - HARKing </br> - p-hacking </br> - Flexible data cleaning and analytic choices | - Open data and code </br> - Pre-registration </br> - Publishing replications </br> - Improved statistical training and re-training </br> - Distinguishing exploratory from confirmatory results |
| Publication process | - Sexy >> Solid </br> - Emphasis on p< .05 </br> - Overclaiming </br> - Tidy stories </br> - Lack of publication of replications | - Open peer review </br> - Post-publication peer review </br> - Pre-registered reports </br> - Alternatives to traditional manuscripts (e.g., data descriptors) </br> - Preprints and new media </br> - Tolerance of “messy/imperfect” findings |
| Storing and archiving | - File drawer problem </br> - Information loss creates bias in meta-analyses | - Open materials, data, and workflow </br> - Rewards for sharing </br> - Innovations in curation and indexing |
- 示範介紹:[Zotera](https://www.zotero.org/);[示範書目來源](https://osf.io/n5b3w/wiki/home/)
zotero 新手示範
{%youtube FbPQZg2JNs0 %}
## [自由授權與透明檔案格式](https://open-science-training-handbook.gitbooks.io/book/content/02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html)
### 簡介
- [授權、許可、特許(license)](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8E%88%E6%AC%8A_(%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B)):這裡指[智慧財產權](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%A5%E8%AF%86%E4%BA%A7%E6%9D%83)的合法使用。
- 自由內容許可證:[GNU自由文檔許可證](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E6%96%87%E6%A1%A3%E8%AE%B8%E5%8F%AF%E8%AF%81);[創用CC](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%9B%E4%BD%9C%E5%85%B1%E7%94%A8)
- 透明檔案格式:比較編輯docx與txt的難度?
- 已知的透明檔案格式:ASCII、Texinfo、LaTeX、HTML、PDF、PNG、JPG
### 與開放科學的關係
- 科學研究成果自由授權有利資訊的散播與循環使用。
- 什麼樣的研究成果能獲得自由內容許可,取決於智慧財產權的現行法規。
- 遵循開放科學原則的研究者,應儘可能使用透明檔案格式存取研究資料。
## FORSTER補充資料
### Open Science background
{%youtube WJ4eHtT3l94 %}
What is Open Science
{%youtube 7Kric3x7zr0 %}
**[Reproducible Research in Computational Science](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383002/)** by Roger Peng
**[From Open Science to Open Innovation](https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/node/870)** by Chesbrough Henry
### The benefits of Open Science
{%youtube 17KO4i1oBo8 %}
### Research Community and Open Science
[Open Science policy: Results of the consultation on "Science 2.0: Science in transition” and possible follow up](https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/sites/default/files/pdf/1412.pdf)
### Openness
Innovation and Growth through Open Access to Scientific Research: Three Ideas for High-Impact Rule Changes
article to be downloaded
### Openness and Citations
[list of services](http://sparceurope.org/oaca/)
### Open Science and research workflow
{%youtube aOhQZIQ9iVQ %}
### Applying Open Science
- [101 innovations](https://innoscholcomm.silk.co/)
- [Open Access Spectrum](https://www.plos.org/how-open-is-it); [中文說明](https://www.plos.org/files/HowOpenIsIt_Chinese.pdf)
### Conclusion
{%youtube kXOPdfVEvp4 %}
### Post-course Assessment
# 評估專案報告