Merge pull request #120 from Brainhack-Donostia/ihintza-patch-48

Update 2023-09-22-project-4.markdown

_posts/2023-09-22-project-4.markdown

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 ---
 title: Oscar Esteban
-subtitle: Pre-registering methods-oriented neuroimaging research, why, when, and how 
+subtitle: "PhD - Research and teaching FNS fellow @ CHUV"
 layout: default
 modal-id: 4
 date: 2014-07-17
 img: OscarWhite.png
 thumbnail: OscarYellow.png
 alt: image-alt
 project-date: April 2014
-description: Although they have existed for over a decade, registered reports (RR) remain somewhat of a stranger as a publication format to researchers across fields. RRs involve a publication workflow designed to limit and, if possible, avert incentives and considerations that may bias the research. Indeed, RRs enforce a careful design of the whole experiment (from data collection to statistical modeling and significance testing) before the data are collected, which ensures rigor to the research plan. Once finalized, the RR undergoes peer review, thereby providing the research early feedback from experts in the field and typically resulting in substantial improvements of the research plan. If peer review occurs in a formal setting (e.g., a journal or other alternatives that will be mentioned in the talk), then a successful RR will achieve “Stage 1 in principle accepted”. This means that peers vetted the research as planned and marks the moment when the researchers can initiate data collection following the RR’s timeline. Once the research is concluded, a manuscript in the traditional conception is written, taking the introduction and methods sections from the RR and completing it with the results and their interpretation. The manuscript may then be sent to the publication platform (e.g., the journal that granted Stage 1), where it will undergo another round of peer review (preferably by the same reviewers who participated in Stage 1) toward final acceptance (Stage 2). The key is that the journal (the editors and the recommendation of the reviewers) commit to publishing the results, even if negative, if the Stage 2 research did not substantially deviate from the Stage 1 RR. This effectively limits publication bias, the long-time problem that scientific literature fundamentally favors positive results. In this talk, we will get a quick description of this format using Oscar's experience with it in his methods-oriented neuroimaging research, providing an example that the scientific community seems finally ready to adopt and value RRs. He will also underscore why he believes this format is particularly interesting to PhD students and early-career researchers, despite the widespread opinion (or myth) that RRs make research slower.
+description: "Pre-registering methods-oriented neuroimaging research, why, when, and how: Although they have existed for over a decade, registered reports (RR) remain somewhat of a stranger as a publication format to researchers across fields. RRs involve a publication workflow designed to limit and, if possible, avert incentives and considerations that may bias the research. Indeed, RRs enforce a careful design of the whole experiment (from data collection to statistical modeling and significance testing) before the data are collected, which ensures rigor to the research plan. Once finalized, the RR undergoes peer review, thereby providing the research early feedback from experts in the field and typically resulting in substantial improvements of the research plan. If peer review occurs in a formal setting (e.g., a journal or other alternatives that will be mentioned in the talk), then a successful RR will achieve “Stage 1 in principle accepted”. This means that peers vetted the research as planned and marks the moment when the researchers can initiate data collection following the RR’s timeline. Once the research is concluded, a manuscript in the traditional conception is written, taking the introduction and methods sections from the RR and completing it with the results and their interpretation. The manuscript may then be sent to the publication platform (e.g., the journal that granted Stage 1), where it will undergo another round of peer review (preferably by the same reviewers who participated in Stage 1) toward final acceptance (Stage 2). The key is that the journal (the editors and the recommendation of the reviewers) commit to publishing the results, even if negative, if the Stage 2 research did not substantially deviate from the Stage 1 RR. This effectively limits publication bias, the long-time problem that scientific literature fundamentally favors positive results. In this talk, we will get a quick description of this format using Oscar's experience with it in his methods-oriented neuroimaging research, providing an example that the scientific community seems finally ready to adopt and value RRs. He will also underscore why he believes this format is particularly interesting to PhD students and early-career researchers, despite the widespread opinion (or myth) that RRs make research slower."
 
 ---