Transparency, open sharing, and reproducibility are core features of science, but not always part of daily practice. Journals can increase transparency and reproducibility of research by adopting the TOP Guidelines. TOP includes eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to adopt for their journal, and select a level of implementation for the selected standards. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards.
The TOP Guidelines are the result of work by a diverse group of researchers, journal editors, funders, and society leaders from behavioral and social sciences. The purpose of the TOP Guidelines is to provide templates of policies and procedures that journals can adopt to encourage greater transparency and reproducibility of research in the published record. The Guidelines are modular and have multiple levels so that journals can adopt part or all of the standards, and can select a level of stringency that is most appropriate for them. This simultaneously provides flexibility and offers the benefits of standards. Organization signatories are expressing their support for the principles expressed in the TOP Guidelines.
Details at http://cos.io/top
If you have not joined yet, please consider doing so. The Open Atmospheric Society is open to everyone with an interest via the Associate membership program.
See http://theoas.org
So still not a single journal entry then?
What does that mean? If you have something to say, please say it.
I have a problem that people who practice a subjective discipline, are contributing to these standards. ” society leaders from behavioral and social sciences.”
This is particularly a problem with federal K-12 education policy, per federal law and NSF funding priorities, has now quietly shifted to being grounded in those very same “behavioral and social sciences.” As this explained http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/confessions-of-a-coordinated-cabal-intent-on-psychological-rape-with-impunity/ the behavioral/social science focus gets hidden in vague terms like “intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies” and “21st century personalized learning” but it always tracks back to work created at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto.
None of this is news to Paul Ehrlich either. It is what he is counting on to make hard science moot as a policy making tool.
It must be really frustrating and worrying to you, Robin, to see all this happening, to know what you know, to sound the alarm, and see it all continue at speed anyway.
As an engineer who had reservations about social science I did a degree in it to see if it really was as rubbish as I thought. I found the methods used were sound and it nearly always turned out to be mis-reported as to both the conclusions and the levels of certainty behind them. I came away feeling totally differently about the professionalism and integrity of most of those I met. This is in the UK so it may well be different to the way things are in the US.
I did the same for climate studies and after a few weeks discovered a profession full of inadequate over ambitious politically cunning pseudo academics with a hugely over inflated idea of their ability and scarcely one who would have made an HNC in engineering let alone a degree. The general level was so low and worthless I abandoned the study in disgust.
To call it a science is a travesty that insults all other forms of science.
A bit off topic probably: Are there any intentions to appoint honorary members who, by their background, have contributed to the advancement of climate science? Prof. Lindzen, Lord Monckton, Dr. Tim Ball, just to name a few, are IMHO suitable candidates…
Perhaps some of the other significant posters here.
Even our h*st?
But – sorry – EIGHT levels.
Look – sorry – the Beaufort scale for wind speeds at sea has 13 – that is 0-12 – and is reasonabl6y justifiable.
But crossing a junction has two – Red or Green.
Not sure the TOP Guidelines need Eight levels.
Seems an awful lot . . .
Auto – not – not at all – impressed by the number of levels!
It is great that The OAS supports the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines initiative, but somewhat disappointing that it needs to be re-introduced into modern science.
Too many times a theory that supports another theory is accepted as the “another theory” having been reproduced.
(I wonder how often those endeavoring to follow the scientific method look around and want to say, “Beam me up, Scotty!”?)
As a retired earth scientist, I would join if the membership rates were reduced for retired rofessionals.
M. McNutt?
I will take this idea seriously when Mann and Jones sign up to it and not before.
So which level has OAS committed itself to?