It was great to talk about reproducible workflows for @riotscienceclub @riotscience_wlv. You can watch the recording below, but if you don't want to listen to me talk for 40 minutes, I thought I would summarise my talk in a thread:

My inspiration was making open science accessible. I wanted to outline the mistakes I've made along the way so people would feel empowered to give it a go. Increased accountability is seen as a barrier to adopting open science practices as an ECR https://t.co/bNK6poNpzx
It also comes across as all or nothing. You are either fully open science or your research won't get anywhere. However, that can be quite intimidating, so I wanted to emphasise this incremental approach to adapting your workflow https://t.co/HS3dx5qJL3
There are two sides to why you should work towards reproducibility. The first is communal. It's going to help the field if you or someone else can reproduce your whole pipeline.
There is also the selfish element of it's just going to help you do your work. If you can't remember what your work means after a lunch break, you're not going to remember months or years down the line https://t.co/iRSXISI5NE
Pre-registration is super helpful, but it takes time to learn how to do it effectively. I had no support for my first attempt and it was awful. https://t.co/o0QgrtBFfJ
But I learnt from my mistakes and eventually got to a point where I'm happy with my approach.
Some aspects of open science can't be added at the end. If you want to share your data, it has to be planned from the ethics stage and your participants have to consent to it. Just remember not all data can be shared openly for ethical reasons.
Sharing materials is one of the easiest things you can do, but very few researchers do it. You can share your stimuli (providing there's no copyright issues) and your task scripts. If you use @GorillaPsyc, there is an open materials function making it super easy.
Double check your analysis pipeline, especially when the results support your hypotheses. I caught an error in my first PhD study before it was too late, but it could have been super embarrassing.
You don't have to go the full R Markdown manuscript route, but I recommend at least scripting any data processing. If you do make a mistake, at least that error is reproducible. You can also use intermediaries like @tidystats to embed results from R into your Word file.
Finally, if you can't read the article in the first place, you can't reproduce it. Most journals allow you to post pre/post-prints and you can upload your dissertation/thesis to Thesis commons. Just double check it's permitted by your target journal: https://t.co/iIIw1VDHdC
Hopefully, this seminar shows people fuck up from time to time. It's about learning from those mistakes and doing what you can to minimise them in future. Try making your workflow more reproducible one step at a time. It'll be worth it in the long-run for you and the community.

More from Science

Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).

Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.


You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.

The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.

In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.

The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.

You May Also Like

And here they are...

THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE

Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.

#24hrstartup

The winners 👇

#10

Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.

https://t.co/M75RAirZzs

@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.

A great product for a great cause.

Congrats Chris on winning $250!


#9

Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.

https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy

A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.

Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!


#8

SayHenlo - Chat without distractions

https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6

Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲

Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.


#7

CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!

https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY

Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.

I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!