ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2390-0963
Current Organisations
University of Leeds
,
Princeton University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 23-05-2023
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 08-2022
DOI: 10.1098/RSOS.220139
Abstract: Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique). We assessed policies (Study One) and practice (Study Two) related to post-publication critique at 15 top-ranked journals in each of 22 scientific disciplines ( N = 330 journals). Two-hundred and seven (63%) journals accepted post-publication critique and often imposed limits on length (median 1000, interquartile range (IQR) 500–1200 words) and time-to-submit (median 12, IQR 4–26 weeks). The most restrictive limits were 175 words and two weeks some policies imposed no limits. Of 2066 randomly s led research articles published in 2018 by journals accepting post-publication critique, 39 (1.9%, 95% confidence interval [1.4, 2.6]) were linked to at least one post-publication critique (there were 58 post-publication critiques in total). Of the 58 post-publication critiques, 44 received an author reply, of which 41 asserted that original conclusions were unchanged. Clinical Medicine had the most active culture of post-publication critique: all journals accepted post-publication critique and published the most post-publication critique overall, but also imposed the strictest limits on length (median 400, IQR 400–550 words) and time-to-submit (median 4, IQR 4–6 weeks). Our findings suggest that top-ranked academic journals often pose serious barriers to the cultivation, documentation and dissemination of post-publication critique.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 02-01-2020
Abstract: Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives have emphasized the benefits of several transparency and reproducibility-related research practices however, their adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. To estimate their prevalence, we manually examined a random s le of 250 psychology articles published between 2014-2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65% [95% confidence interval, 59%-71%]) however, sharing of research materials (26/183, 14% [10%-19%]), study protocols (0/188, 0% [0%-1%]), raw data (4/188, 2% [1%-4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188, 1% [0%-1%]) was rare. Pre-registration was also uncommon (5/188, 3% [1%-5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228, 62% [56%-69%]), but conflict of interest statements were less common (88/228, 39% [32%-45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188, 5% [3%-8%]) and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183, 11% [8%-16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183, 7% [4%-10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish a baseline which can be used to assess future progress towards increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 2021
Abstract: From the earliest months of life, infants prefer listening to and learn better from infant-directed speech (IDS) compared with adult-directed speech (ADS). Yet IDS differs within communities, across languages, and across cultures, both in form and in prevalence. This large-scale, multisite study used the ersity of bilingual infant experiences to explore the impact of different types of linguistic experience on infants’ IDS preference. As part of the multilab ManyBabies 1 project, we compared preference for North American English (NAE) IDS in lab-matched s les of 333 bilingual and 384 monolingual infants tested in 17 labs in seven countries. The tested infants were in two age groups: 6 to 9 months and 12 to 15 months. We found that bilingual and monolingual infants both preferred IDS to ADS, and the two groups did not differ in terms of the overall magnitude of this preference. However, among bilingual infants who were acquiring NAE as a native language, greater exposure to NAE was associated with a stronger IDS preference. These findings extend the previous finding from ManyBabies 1 that monolinguals learning NAE as a native language showed a stronger IDS preference than infants unexposed to NAE. Together, our findings indicate that IDS preference likely makes similar contributions to monolingual and bilingual development, and that infants are exquisitely sensitive to the nature and frequency of different types of language input in their early environments.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 11-2020
DOI: 10.1037/CAP0000216
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 08-07-2021
Abstract: The ability to learn and apply rules lies at the heart of cognition. In a seminal study, Marcus, Vijayan, Rao, and Vishton (1999) reported that seven-month-old infants learned abstract rules over syllable sequences and were able to generalize those rules to novel syllable sequences. Dozens of studies have since extended on that research using different rules, modalities, stimuli, participants (human adults and non-human animals) and experimental procedures. Yet questions remain about the robustness of Marcus et al.’s (1999) core findings, as the presence of significant learning effects has been mixed. In the current study, we aimed to address this issue by testing XX infants of a wide age range (5 -12 months) in a multi-laboratory (XX laboratories) replication of the Marcus et al. (1999) study.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 19-01-2022
Abstract: Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries, and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique). We assessed policies (Study One) and practice (Study Two) related to post-publication critique at 15 top-ranked journals in each of 22 scientific disciplines (N=330 journals). 207 (63%) journals accepted post-publication critique and often imposed limits on length (median 1000, interquartile range [IQR] 500-1200 words) and time-to-submit (median 12, IQR 4-26 weeks). The most restrictive limits were 175 words and 2 weeks some policies imposed no limits. Of 2066 randomly s led research articles published in 2018 by journals accepting post-publication critique, 39 (1.9%, 95% confidence interval [1.4, 2.6]) were linked to at least one post-publication critique (there were 58 post-publication critiques in total). Of the 58 post-publication critiques, 44 received an author reply, of which 41 asserted that original conclusions were unchanged. Clinical Medicine had the most active culture of post-publication critique: all journals accepted post-publication critique and published the most post-publication critique overall, but also imposed the strictest limits on length (median 400, IQR 400-550 words) and time-to-submit (median 4, IQR 4-6 weeks). Our findings suggest that top-ranked academic journals often pose serious barriers to the cultivation, documentation, and dissemination of post-publication critique.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Jessica Kosie.