Here we present Singularity, software developed to bring containers and reproducibility to scientific computing. Using Singularity containers, developers can work in reproducible environments of their choosing and design, and these complete environments can easily be copied and executed on other platforms. Singularity is an open source initiative that harnesses the expertise of system and software engineers and researchers alike, and integrates seamlessly into common workflows for both of these groups. As its primary use case, Singularity brings mobility of computing to both users and HPC centers, providing a secure means to capture and distribute software and compute environments. This ability to create and deploy reproducible environments across these centers, a previously unmet need, makes Singularity a game changing development for computational science.

/pdf/singularity-scientific-containers-for-mobility-of-compute-1cc0ze5ylx.pdf

Singularity: Scientific containers for mobility of compute.

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses.

In psychology, attempts to replicate published findings are less successful than expected. For properly powered studies replication rate should be around 80%, whereas in practice less than 40% of the studies selected from different areas of psychology can be replicated. Researchers in cognitive psychology are hindered in estimating the power of their studies, because the designs they use present a sample of stimulus materials to a sample of participants, a situation not covered by most power formulas. To remedy the situation, we review the literature related to the topic and introduce recent software packages, which we apply to the data of two masked priming studies with high power. We checked how we could estimate the power of each study and how much they could be reduced to remain powerful enough. On the basis of this analysis, we recommend that a properly powered reaction time experiment with repeated measures has at least 1,600 word observations per condition (e.g., 40 participants, 40 stimuli). This is considerably more than current practice. We also show that researchers must include the number of observations in meta-analyses because the effect sizes currently reported depend on the number of stimuli presented to the participants. Our analyses can easily be applied to new datasets gathered.

/pdf/power-analysis-and-effect-size-in-mixed-effects-models-a-1ox1118bc1.pdf

Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial

The designing, collecting, analyzing, and reporting of psychological studies entail many choices that are often arbitrary. The opportunistic use of these so-called researcher degrees of freedom aimed at obtaining statistically significant results is problematic because it enhances the chances of false positive results and may inflate effect size estimates. In this review article, we present an extensive list of 34 degrees of freedom that researchers have in formulating hypotheses, and in designing, running, analyzing, and reporting of psychological research. The list can be used in research methods education, and as a checklist to assess the quality of preregistrations and to determine the potential for bias due to (arbitrary) choices in unregistered studies.

/pdf/degrees-of-freedom-in-planning-running-analyzing-and-3ucobj4elb.pdf

Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking

As virtual reality (VR) technology and systems become more commercially available and accessible, more and more psychologists are starting to integrate VR as part of their methods. This approach offers major advantages in experimental control, reproducibility, and ecological validity, but also has limitations and hidden pitfalls which may distract the novice user. This study aimed to guide the psychologist into the novel world of VR, reviewing available instrumentation and mapping the landscape of possible systems. We use examples of state-of-the-art research to describe challenges which research is now solving, including embodiment, uncanny valley, simulation sickness, presence, ethics, and experimental design. Finally, we propose that the biggest challenge for the field would be to build a fully interactive virtual human who can pass a VR Turing test - and that this could only be achieved if psychologists, VR technologists, and AI researchers work together.

Elizabeth Gilbert

Papers

Reproducibility Project: Results (Part of symposium called "The Reproducibility Project: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science")