To continue our #OAWeek celebrations, we reflect on important milestones in Collabra: Psychology‘s history and asked Collabra: Psychology authors to share why they chose to publish their research open access, in keeping with the OA Week theme “Open in order to . . .”
“Open in order to give everyone access to science. Open in order to improve replicability in psychology. Open in order to save university libraries a ton of money. Open in order to support a journal with a wonderful model of how open science can work.”
—Ashley J. Thomas, University of California, Irvine, and author of Collabra: Psychology article No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children
“Collabra: Psychology in order to support an ethical, honest journal that rewards reviewers, doesn’t appear to be profit-oriented (as evidenced by the reasonable APCs), aims to publish sound research (not just flashy effects), and has open review and a very convenient streamlined review option.”
—Tom Heyman, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat, and author of Collabra: Psychology article Does a Working Memory Load Really Influence Semantic Priming? A Self-replication Attempt
At Collabra: Psychology we celebrate all things “open” — open access, open data, open analytic methods, and more — so during Open Access Week 2017, we thought it fitting to highlight a favorite “open” feature: open peer review. At Collabra: Psychology and other journals, open peer review is the practice by which review comments are openly available alongside the published article, if accepted. If reviewers sign their reviews, their names are therefore also made public.
While open peer review is not completely new to scholarly publishing — and is in fact commonly accepted by advocates of open science — issues surrounding the peer review process remain subjects of debate. We asked Collabra: Psychology publisher Dan Morgan to share his perspectives on open peer review in the Q&A below. For those interested in delving deeper into the world of peer review, check out his 2016 blog post “Peer Review in 5 points,” and, for those in the Bay Area, please join Dan and other panelists at a UC Berkeley panel discussion, Understanding the (Changing) Realm of Peer Review, on Thursday, October 26 from 1:00–2:30pm (309 Sproul Hall).
Even within the conversation about open peer review, the policies and practices of what it actually looks like can vary widely — it could mean reviewers signing their names but not including comments, including reviewers’ comments but keeping their names anonymous, journals providing reviews for rejected papers, or something else. How would you define open peer review?
DM: Open peer review is currently not defined as a definitive practice, at present, short of implying that there is at least some openness at some point in the process. One could maybe limit it to two broad themes: 1) that review comments are published alongside an article, but these comments occurred previously and in private, with identities sometimes open, and 2) that the reviewing process itself is performed in public, with all identities open. Examples of 1) are Collabra: Psychology and PeerJ. An examples of 2) is F1000 Research.
What problems do you think an open review process can solve? And conversely, are there any problems you think an open review process can create?
DM: Before you get to open review solving actual problems, I think you can already say that open review is going to be interesting and informative for scientists and scholars. It gives you great background regarding the article’s development and improvement. It could help authors learn about how best to write and craft articles, in the first place, by being able to see any common themes or regular issues uncovered or tackled during the review process. A problem it can solve is any perception of conflict of interest or questionable practices during peer review. For example, if you’ve ever read a paper and thought “how did this get through peer review”, you would be able to actually see how it did, by seeing what the comments were during the process. If you’ve ever thought “oh, this article was only accepted because the author is friends with the editor,”, you would be able to check on the process to ensure that it occurred legitimately, and that a genuine review occurred. So, speaking in very general terms, it helps people’s trust in the communication of science.
As for problems that open review can create, I touch on this in my blog post linked above: most of the problems open review causes are not problems inherent to openness and transparency, they are inherent to “the weird, wonderful, hierarchical world of ambitious, sensitive humans in the academic and research infrastructure.” So, open review could mean that if you wrote a negative review of a more senior academic, and it is made public and you signed your review, you might be afraid that this colleague might hold it against you in future. These problems are important, but in my opinion should be solved by transparently addressing the social elements of the academic system, rather than saying open peer review is bad and should be avoided. I think, in the service of science, we should tackle the problems open review might create in order to better focus on the great problems it solves.
In your opinion, should there be certain parameters around openness during the peer review process? In other words, are there instances or types of information that should not be shared?
DM: Certainly, and these are easier to recognize than define. I think any comment on crucial yet confidential information about an author, or another person, by a reviewer, should be able to be made in confidence. So, therefore, it is important to always have a way to write confidential comments to an editor, or, in the case of public, post-publication review, send confidential comments directly to the author or editor.
At Collabra: Psychology, authors always have the option to choose open review or closed review. Has it surprised you that the majority (77%) of Collabra: Psychology authors have chosen to publish their articles with open reviews?
DM: Yes, I have genuinely been surprised at the number of authors that have opted for open review. I think there are a few drivers at work. Firstly, Collabra: Psychology is clearly presenting itself as a journal embracing open science and transparent practices, so even though open review is an option, early-adopting authors are likely predisposed to open review. Secondly, because it is an option, and many people forget to state in their cover letter whether they are choosing it or not (!) in many instances we get to email directly with the author to check whether or not they are choosing open review. On several occasions, an author has said “well, I wasn’t going to, but tell me more”. Since our first few articles had open review, we were able to not only tell them more, but show them real examples of how it had worked, so perhaps people who wouldn’t ordinarily have chosen it as an A/B decision, got to have a conversation about it which made them more familiar and less fearful of it.
Where do you see the world of peer review headed next? How do you think peer review practices should continue to evolve to facilitate more objective, fair, and transparent science?
DM: Wherever the world of peer review systems and processes is headed, I would like the culture and behavior of scientists reviewing each other’s work to become more objective and helpful, and less interwoven with social and personal sensitivities and the “publish or perish” mentality. While publishing articles should always be important, perhaps if it were a few notches less important, people would be more focused on the transparency and credibility of their science rather than the impact of (and rewards from) their claims, more open to being challenged and questioned, and less likely to be over-defensive about reviewers finding concerns or suggesting improvement to their work.
I am not saying I know exactly how to get there, or that I experience this directly myself (I am not a scholar or researcher). But, I think it is everyone’s duty in scholarly publishing to try and make things better and more efficient, and to keep an eye on what is not working and what is inefficient. I am hopeful the focus on transparency as something embedded in the practice of science, rather than the writing-up and publishing of an article, will improve science, and improve the trust in science. As for specific things, I am particularly interested in:
Registered Reports, pre-registration, and, in general, the efforts made in stating up front what experiments you are going to be doing, so people understand that you didn’t change your analyses or hypotheses post hoc, or allow undue flexibility in your data analysis.
Technology solutions like the ones being developed by the Coko Foundation, https://coko.foundation/, which are focused on building person-led (rather than publisher-led, or legacy process-led) systems to manage various editorial processes for journals, books, preprints, etc.
Publishers tend to shy away from change because they do not want to rock the boat or change a situation that is beneficial to their business practices and value-proposition. I myself believe that publishers should be working alongside researchers and scholars to make things better and, in doing so, ensuring publishers’ ongoing value by participating in, rather than blocking, change.
In our first post in the series, we sit down with Interim Director Erich van Rijn to survey the landscape of OA publishing at UC Press.
UC Press made a bold move into OA scholarly monograph publishing two years ago, in summer/fall 2015. How is Luminos progressing in 2017?
EVR: Luminos continues to experience growth. Thus far, we’ve published 40 titles in the program. We tend to count publications by fiscal year, and by that measure, Luminos is entering its third year of publication and every fiscal year has seen an increase in the numbers of titles published, with 14 titles released in the program’s first year and 20 in its second, and projections are for 25 titles to be released in this fiscal year.
We’re also pleased to see continued growth in the Luminos Member Library program, whereby libraries who support OA publishing contribute to the direct costs of publishing monographs in the humanities and social sciences, through annual member fees, so that both the benefits—unfettered global access to important research—and the costs of publishing are shared across stakeholders. We currently have 22 supporting libraries who have contributed $158,000 in funding that has been applied to the production costs of Luminos titles.
With print books, success can be measured in book sales, but how do you measure the success of free open access books?
EVR: One metric we track closely is usage. To date we’ve tallied 84,575+ book and chapter downloads for Luminos titles. That’s an average of well over 2,000 downloads per book. These are impressive numbers, especially when compared against the average sales figures for a traditional print monograph. And in the coming year, we are undertaking a partnership with KU Research, JSTOR, Michigan, UCL Press, and Cornell to evaluate Luminos usage data in order to improve reporting and our understanding of how scholars and other readers are using Luminos books.
How are readers finding Luminos titles? Do you have strategies to improve discoverability?
EVR: In addition to making Luminos titles discoverable at DOAB and available on our own platform, we’re hosting Luminos titles for download on Books at JSTOR and on OAPEN, where additional readers have the opportunity to find these books. We’ve been impressed with the activity we’ve seen for Luminos titles on these sites. Books at JSTOR, in particular, has been influential in bringing a larger audience to these titles—we first made titles available on Books at JSTOR in September 2016 and are now seeing 68% of title downloads coming from Books at JSTOR.
What do we have to look forward to in terms of future Luminos content?
EVR: We have a number of new academic publishing partners who have launched book series with Luminos and some of the first titles in these series will be published in the coming year. This spring will see the publication of inaugural books in the Global Korea series (published in partnership with University of California Berkeley’s Institute for Korean Studies) and in the Islamic Humanities series (published in partnership with the Institute for Islamic Humanities at Brown University). Jinsoo An’s Parameters of Disavowal will look at colonial representation in South Korean cinema, while Shenila Khoja-Moolji will examine the interplay of gender, race, religion and power in transnational contexts in Forging the Ideal Educated Girl. Also coming this spring is Eternal Dissident, in which David Meyers, who edits the UCLA Leve Series in Jewish History and Culture, looks at Leonard Beerman, one of the most controversial Reform rabbis of the twentieth century. We’re excited and pleased to be working with esteemed publishing partners in the Luminos program and look forward to bringing future publications in these and other series to Luminos readers over the coming years.
In addition to Luminos, UC Press also has an open access journal program called Collabra that currently publishes two journals, Collabra: Psychology and Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. How has the Collabra program progressed in recent years?
EVR: UC Press first entered open access journal publishing in 2015 with the launch of a multidisciplinary mega-journal called Collabra. The plan for Collabra, even as a mega-journal, was to create a journal that puts the academic community first—in transparency and openness, in scientific and scholarly rigor, and in fair pricing and ethical business practices. Our journals program evolved and expanded in 2016 when Collabra transitioned its research focus to psychology as Collabra: Psychology, and when UC Press acquired Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene from BioOne—but our community-first values remain central to our open access program. Both Collabra: Psychology and Elementa have unique business models that share value with editors and reviewers, and give them the option to keep their earnings or pay them forward to the academic community; both journals also include APC waiver funds for authors who cannot pay the APC; and both journals are fully led by their respective academic communities, and are committed to transparency and open science.
How has UC Press worked to innovate and improve the landscape of open access journals publishing?
EVR: In addition to structuring our journals with high levels of integrity, both academically and in business practice, we are delighted to have partnered with the Coko Foundation to develop an open source journal management system—“xpub”. (eLife and Hindawi are additional partners.) Currently the focus is on the submission and review process, and journals, but this project will not be limited to pre-acceptance process, nor journals, in the longer term. Beyond technological innovation, we have also helped make more people accustomed to open peer review, at Collabra: Psychology, whereby review comments are published alongside accepted articles if the authors chose this option. Open peer review can mean many things in the current scholarly publishing landscape, but Collabra: Psychology’s version of it has been more successful and more adopted than we anticipated—fully 77% of article authors have opted for open peer review—so we are pleased to be incrementally changing norms in the service of more transparent science and publishing.
Does UC Press have plans to launch new open access journals in the Collabra program?
EVR: Yes, we are working on a number of OA journal projects, including one called Civic Sociology, which is related to an idea in sociology which is already gaining popularity, about promoting scholarship oriented toward more effective, ethical interventions into systemic social problems, globally, via a better understanding of local and regional particularities. Watch this space for more!
“With our shared focus on rigorous science and improving norms for publishing practices, and an increasing cross-over of people involved with both, it feels natural to formally affiliate Collabra: Psychology and SIPS. Both entities’ missions are amplified by this collaboration.”
Simine Vazire, UC Davis, and Chair, SIPS Executive Committee also says of the partnership:
“We are thrilled that Collabra: Psychology will be the official journal of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science. This joint project will be vital to helping us fulfill our mission. Collabra: Psychology provides an outlet for psychological research that exemplifies the values of SIPS, and presents an opportunity for SIPS to help change norms and incentives in the field of psychology .”
Collabra: Psychology and SIPS are excited to unite in a shared mission to improve psychological science, and scholarly communications broadly, through policies that support transparency, openness, diversity, and rigorous, ethical scientific research practices. To learn more about how Collabra: Psychology currently reinforces these values, check out our website at collabra.org.
As part of our “Tools of the Trade” blog series this summer, we’re here to help you further your own research by providing the resources you need to focus on your scholarship, write—or rewrite—your work, and prepare your work for publication.
Regardless of the discipline, the quality of one’s research is only as sound as the manner in which it was conducted. That’s why our Open Access journal, Collabra: Psychology, has an entire section dedicated to the study of Methodology and Research Practice in Psychology. For those conducting research this summer—and especially those in psychological fields—we’ve rounded up the following articles to help inform your own methodological approaches, data transparency, and replicability practices.
Making Your Research Transparent (Unlike a Car Salesperson!)
When consumers of science (readers and reviewers) lack relevant details about the study design, data, and analyses, they cannot adequately evaluate the strength of a scientific study. A car whose carburetor is duct-taped to the rest of the car might work perfectly fine, but the buyer has a right to know about the duct-taping. Without high levels of transparency in scientific publications, consumers of scientific manuscripts are in a similar position as buyers of used cars – they cannot reliably tell the difference between lemons and high quality findings. The solution is to increase transparency and give consumers of scientific research the information they need to accurately evaluate research. Transparency also encourages researchers to be more careful in how they conduct their studies and write up their results.
In recent years, there has been a growing concern regarding the replicability of findings in psychology, including a mounting number of prominent findings that have failed to replicate via high-powered independent replication attempts. In the face of this replicability “crisis of confidence”, several initiatives have been implemented to increase the reliability of empirical findings. In the current article, LeBel proposes a new replication norm that aims to further boost the dependability of findings in psychology. Paralleling the extant social norm that researchers should peer review about three times as many articles that they themselves publish per year, the new replication norm states that researchers should aim to independently replicate important findings in their own research areas in proportion to the number of original studies they themselves publish per year (e.g., a 4:1 original-to-replication studies ratio).
Giving Due Attention to the Pitfalls of False Negatives
The concern for false positives has overshadowed the concern for false negatives in the recent debates in psychology. This might be unwarranted, since reported statistically nonsignificant findings may just be “too good to be false.” This article examines evidence for false negatives in nonsignificant results in three different ways, arguing that the failure to address false negatives can lead to a waste of research resources and stifle the scientific discovery process.
Are you a scholarly society, or other community or collective, with an OA journal idea that you would like to develop with UC Press?
Are you involved with an OA journal that you are in a position to consider publishing with UC Press?
Are you an editor, or on an editorial board, considering starting a new OA journal?
Then please consider reaching out to us. Our aim is to facilitate, and not control, and we acknowledge the primary importance of the scholarly community in the value of a journal. Contact: Dan Morgan, Publisher, UC Press, at email@example.com.
Collabra’s transition to Collabra: Psychology, a journal devoted to psychology, was not an exit from other fields but a focus on a specific community in which it gained great traction. When the opportunity to publish Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene came along, we realized the best way forward for our OA efforts would be to work with specific communities on specific journals.
And now our intention is to have “Collabra” be an overarching brand for more Open Access journals—which will all feature the core values of:
Fairness in pricing and business practice, with revenue sharing models if appropriate
Scientific and scholarly rigor
Transparency and openness, in data, methods, interests—defined by each community
Putting the academic community first—which community primarily creates and maintains a journal’s profile and identify
We look forward to working with you! Please reach out to Dan Morgan, Publisher, UC Press, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
UC Press is proud to be part of the AAUP’s fifth annual University Press Week. Check out our blog and social media channels through Nov. 19th (plus follow hashtags #ReadUp#UPWeek), and learn how we, along with 40 of our scholarly press colleagues, work diligently to publish vital works benefitting educational, specialized research, and general interest communities.
We invite you to submit your work in developmental psychology to Collabra: Psychology, the mission-centric, value-sharing open access (OA) journal from University of California Press.
If you’ve already heard of us, you will know that Collabra: Psychology is different. It is not just another OA journal, but a journal that actually gives back to the research community through a novel mechanism that recognizes and shares the value contributed by editors and peer reviewers. This mechanism shares earnings with editors and reviewers for any journal work (not just work leading to acceptance), and allows them to make decisions as to what happens with this value, with options to “pay forward” that value to institutional OA budgets, or to an author waiver fund subsidizing APCs for other researchers. This page explains it in full.
Additionally, Collabra: Psychology is focused on scientific, methodological, and ethical rigor. Editors and reviewers do not attempt to predict a submission’s impact to the field, nor employ any topic bias in accepting articles — they will check for rigorously and transparently conducted, statistically sound, adequately powered, and fairly analyzed research worthy of inclusion in the scholarly record. The bar is set high.
We encourage you to submit your work to us, and to know that you will be supporting one of the first journals that shares actual value with all of the people who do the work and help create a journal’s brand. With our first papers now published and receiving over 25,000 views collectively, we look forward to continued publishing success. Any questions, please contact Dan Morgan.
There are many more innovative features at Collabra: Psychology, including optional open peer review, article-level metrics, article annotation and commentary from hypothes.is, and an article-sharing partnership with Kudos, to name just a few. Please do check out the website for the full story: www.collabra.org.
To see more Calls for Papers from Collabra: Psychology, click here.
Rachael G. Samberg is UC Berkeley’s first Scholarly Communication Officer, and is leading the charge in developing their scholarly communication program. A Duke Law graduate, Rachael practiced intellectual property litigation at Fenwick & West LLP for seven years before spending six years at Stanford Law School’s library, where she was Head of Reference & Instructional Services and a Lecturer in Law. She joined UC Berkeley in June 2016.
What is your mandate at UCB?
I’m here to build a world-class program supporting scholars throughout the entire knowledge lifecycle. Our mission is to help faculty, staff, and students use, create, publish, and manage scholarly information by providing guidance and training as they research, publish, and teach. This could mean anything from: answering copyright and licensing questions about what scholars include in their publications, helping authors protect their IP rights once they publish, promoting discoverability and recognition of scholars’ research and writing, shaping funding models that will sustain open access scholarly communication, making data and text more available for research and analysis, incentivizing the creation of open educational resources—and much more.
We’ll do all of this with an eye toward helping scholars navigate and maximize their research impact in the changing scholarly publishing landscape. The UC System performs nearly one-tenth of all the academic research and development conducted in the United States, and produces approximately one-twelfth of all U.S. research publications. So, our program’s ability to bring added visibility and support for UC Berkeley scholars’ research and publishing can thus have tremendous global impact, and potentially help us shape national and international policies and practices in scholarly publishing.
Why is OA important to you?
The books, periodicals, and journals in which scholars publish (and that researchers and students around the globe need to access) are nearly out of reach for well-funded institutions, let alone smaller campuses or individuals. They’re expensive and often behind insurmountable subscription paywalls. This publishing system stymies idea exchange.
Open Access publishing—like the kind that UC Press is doing with Luminos, Collabra, and Elementa—helps ensure that scholars can discover and utilize the information they need, and have their work found and used by others—all of which promotes innovation and progress.
What initiatives do you have planned?
Our program’s first year priorities will be to:
Provide support for OA publishing. This means expanding library funding and support for OA publication of all types (monographs, journal articles, data, etc.), supporting national and international initiatives to migrate publishing to OA, promoting UCB scholarship that’s published OA, and conducting outreach and training about OA and scholarly impact.
Provide intellectual property rights education. I’m providing both wide-scale and discipline-specific campus education and guidance about the use of licensed and IP rights-protected materials in research, scholarship and instruction. I’m also offering education and guidance on post-publishing author rights retention, and supporting consultations as to all.
Explore opportunities to further affordable course content and open educational resources (OERs). We’ll be looking into ways to encourage creation of OERs, and provide education and training regarding incorporating them into instruction and syllabi. We’re also working on promoting library-licensed resources to reduce student course pack and textbook costs.
Establish a scholarly communication program website. I’ve been creating a lot of guidance materials in support of all the different educational initiatives for the program. For instance, I’ve developed a copyright and publishing guide for dissertation writers, a workflow for addressing copyright issues in course content, and much more. I’ll be establishing a unified program website that pulls together information about all of the program’s services, and includes this rich, comprehensive content to support scholars and students.
We’ll also be exploring adoption of a profiles system (or, research information management system, as they’re sometimes called) to promote faculty scholarship and encourage OA publishing, and revising library special collections policies to reduce access barriers for publishing and reuse.
What has faculty reception been?
As one indicia of the great need for scholarly communication services on many campuses, I’ve discovered it’s possible to strong relationships with faculty members even without “the campus” as a whole knowing what our program is yet. I’m so grateful that, from the moment I arrived, library staff and various academic departments and programs began referring faculty to me for guidance related to copyright and licensing issues. Even without a program website, I’ve been able to conduct outreach through these individual consultations. If you can provide excellent service—which I aim 1000% of the time to do—word will spread, and you can become an important resource in the academic community.
Any lessons learned to share with other institutions?
Build relationships, listen, and learn. I hit the ground running when I arrived to meet with as many individuals and campus departments as I could, and figure out what services they need. Of course, on a campus this size, that type of work is always ongoing. But from the beginning, by focusing on building relationships, I’ve been able to organize and hold a wide array of trainings to help the scholarly communication program become integrated into the network of campus support services.
For instance, during this OA Week, we have partnered with the UC Berkeley Graduate Division to provide workshops on copyright and publishing issues with dissertations and first books (at which UC Press’s Reed Malcolm spoke), and training on how to track and increase scholarly impact. We have also worked with the D-Lab (data lab) and Digital Humanties@Berkeley to offer unique sessions related to data publishing and DH project preservation. And, we’re looking forward to ongoing partnerships with UC Press to promote OA publications by UC scholars.
Collabra: Psychology is fortunate to have an impressive roster of senior editors across its seven psychology sections. Among these is Don Moore, PhD, Professor of Management of Organizations at the Haas of School Business, UC Berkeley, and Senior Editor in Organizational Behavior.
Don Moore got his start as a PhD candidate at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, followed by a position at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University. While there, he visited the University of New South Wales in Sydney, the University of Wurzburg in Germany, and the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. Then, because his family “really likes schlepping back and forth across the country,” he went back to Carnegie Mellon for an additional year before accepting a position in the Management of Organizations group at the Haas School.
Now adding Senior Editorship of Collabra: Psychology to the many hats he wears, we sat down with Don to learn more about his work and research, as well as what inspired him to be part of the open access journal.
1. What inspired you to pursue a career in Organizational Behavior?
After college, where I majored in Psychology, I went to go work for a privately held and neurotically secretive industrial supply company where I was overpaid to do dreadfully dull work. I hated the job the company wanted me to do, but I was fascinated by all the circumstances surrounding my work. How did the company select people for hire or promotion? How did the company make important decisions? Who had the power? How did they communicate with others in the organization? Was the company doing these things optimally or was it possible to identify better approaches? I went back to graduate school, in part to get away from my awful job managing grommet inventories, but mostly to study all the fascinating issues of behavior in organizations.
2. I gather that your research has focused primarily on the study of overconfidence. How did you arrive at this topic?
In graduate school I had the good fortune to be able to work with the wonderful Max Bazerman at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School. For my dissertation, I studied the role of time pressure in negotiation. Mostly, it was a narrow and boring dissertation topic, but there was one interesting result that emerged: when negotiators were put under time pressure, everyone (both buyer and seller) thought it was bad for them, and thought the time pressure would help the other side. Trying to understand how it is that people could be more aware of their own constraints than of others’ led me to run studies in which people were competing with each other on tests whose difficulty I manipulated. When the test got harder, all competitors thought they would be less likely to win. Or to pick another example, when the instructor cancels an exam review session or decides to make the exam closed-book, students’ hopes of getting a good grade decline, even if everyone knows the exam is graded on a forced curve. The consequence is underconfidence: everyone believes they had a below-average chance to win. My career since then has focused on identifying when people are overconfident and when they are underconfident.
3. Can you share a particularly memorable experience or breakthrough in your research?
My proudest breakthrough was when I realized I could explain the baffling empirical inconsistency between the hard-easy effect (in which people overestimate performance most on hard tasks) and its apparent reversal in better- and worse-than-average effects (in which people are most likely to believe that they are better than others at easy tasks). I presented that delightfully parsimonious explanation in a 2007 paper with Deborah Smalland a 2008 paper with PJ Healy.
4. What do you think is the greatest concern or challenge in your field today?
The field is going through a wrenching series of changes in the conduct of research and sharing of results. Before long, it will be standard practice for researchers to pre-register their studies before they run them, and afterward to post data, materials, and analysis code. But until then, the rules of the game are changing, and the changes are not being adopted at an equal rate everywhere, creating some divisions among scientists and some uncertainty for young scientists regarding how they should do their work.
5. What drew you to editorship of Collabra: Psychology?
The old system for publishing and disseminating scientific articles is appallingly inefficient, distressingly unfair, and deeply dysfunctional. For-profit publishers exploit the volunteer labor of researchers, reviewers, and editors. They then claim copyright over our work, slow down its dissemination, restrict access to the knowledge we want to share with the world, and charge our own libraries for access to it. It’s an utterly insane system that only exists because once upon a time it was expensive to distribute paper copies of printed journals. But the Internet has changed all that, making it essentially free for scientists to share their research with the world, for example at a pre-print repository. A revolution will overthrow the world of scientific publishing and I am excited about Collabra: Psychology’s potential role in hastening that revolution.
6. What kind of impact do you hope to have as a Senior Editor for Collabra: Psychology?
I am proud that Collabra: Psychology will be open and free to everyone, and that contributors will also be helping advance open science in other ways, including data posting and open reviews. We hope to establish Collabra: Psychology’s distinctive reputation as a journal whose high methodological standards can assure readers that papers published in the journal present results that are true and replicable. Researchers doing this sort of work ought to be especially interested in submitting it to us. But Collabra as a publishing program is also positioned to play a larger role in the future of scientific publishing. The journal’s publisher and OA platform stand ready to host other journals. When editorial teams at closed journals decide to throw off the yoke of exploitation and move en masse to an open-access format, Collabra has the infrastructure in place to make that move easy for the team. Moreover, since Collabra does not attempt to claim exclusive ownership over articles, it could serve as the quality referee for an online archive, such as PsyArXiv or OSF preprints in the case of Collabra: Psychology.
7. Okay, overconfidence aside — do you have a secret talent or hobby you are willing to share?
I’m quite confident I don’t. I have devoted my life to science, and taken vows of poverty and celibacy. Well, I did make an exception for my wife. And truth be told, I’m not sure the poverty thing is really working out either. But I have become a very boring person as most of my hobbies have fallen by the wayside because I love my work so much. If I have a secret talent, it is the ability to spring eagerly from my bed most mornings at 5 a.m. to dash to my desk and get to work.