Community developing and supporting practices to increase replicability of scient

描述（由申请人提供）：可复制性是科学的核心价值，以确保知识是有效的。然而，科学激励和奖励的文化几乎完全以牺牲复制和验证为代价来优先考虑创新。该项目支持 发展一个社区来改变激励机制，以便在老龄化研究和社会行为科学中更普遍地奖励可复制性。社区将创建、评估和传播四个项目，这些项目可以改变激励机制，提高可复制性。这四个项目是：（1）表彰和奖励开放实践的徽章：目前，科学家在期刊上发表研究成果可以获得声誉和奖励。如果其他科学家 可以访问作为已发表研究基础的材料和数据。拟议中的徽章将附在文章上，以奖励作者将他们的研究公开提供给他人。(2)披露标准：研究的可复制性部分取决于证据是如何获得的。有些事情是每一份报告都应该披露的。举例来说：如何确定样本量，是否有其他未报告的指标，以及结果是否依赖于分析中使用的其他指标。(3)注册报告：研究人员不进行复制，因为它们很难发表。注册报告将引入一种出版格式，在收集数据之前对研究设计进行审查。这对于重复性研究来说是很好的，因为研究人员可以在数据收集工作之前发现研究是否可以重复。(4)研究工作流程清单：科学是复杂的。在报告中很容易忘记或不包括重要信息，或者在审阅者或编辑时不检查特定内容。检查表可以作为确保遵循特定实践的有用指南。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Replicability is a core value of science to assure that the knowledge is valid. However, the culture of scientific incentives and rewards prioritizes innovation almost exclusively at the expense of replication and verification. This project supports developing a community to shift incentives so that replicability is rewarded in aging research and social-behavioral sciences more generally. The community will create, evaluate, and disseminate four projects that could shift incentives to improve replicability. The four projects are: (1) Badges to acknowledge and reward open practices: Currently, scientists earn reputation and reward for publishing their research in journals. Replicability is enhanced if other scientists can access the materials and data that were the basis for the published research. The proposed badges will attach to articles to reward authors for making their research openly available to others. (2) Disclosure standards: The replicability of research is partly contingent on how the evidence was obtained. There are some things that every report should disclose. For example: how the sample size was determined, whether there were other measures not reported, and whether the results are dependent on other measures used in the analysis. (3) Registered reports: Researchers do not conduct replications because they are hard to publish. Registered reports will introduce a publishing format in which the study design is reviewed before the data are collected. This is good for replication research because researchers can find out before the effort of data collection if the study will be publishable. (4) Checklists for research workflow: Science is complex. It is easy to forget or fail to include important information in a report, or t check for particular things when being a reviewer or editor. Checklists can be useful guides for making sure particular practices are followed.