@incollection{oreskes2021trust,
  title={Why trust science?},
  author={Oreskes, Naomi},
  booktitle={Why Trust Science?},
  year={2021},
  publisher={Princeton University Press}
}

@article{dominus2017revolution,
  title={When the revolution came for Amy Cuddy},
  author={Dominus, Susan},
  journal={The New York Times},
  volume={29},
  year={2017}
}


@INPROCEEDINGS{ODea2021-le,
  title      = "The next 10 years",
  author     = "O'Dea, Rose",
  year       =  2021,
  conference = "AIMOS Inc"
}

@misc{frank2022experimentology,
  title={Experimentology: An Open Science Approach to Experimental Psychology Methods},
  author={Frank, Michael C and Braginsky, Mika and Cachia, Julie and Coles, Nicholas and Hardwicke, Tom and Hawkins, Robert and Mathur, Maya B and Williams, Rondeline},
  year={2022},
  publisher={MIT Press}
}

@article{henry2021data,
  title={Data Management for Researchers: Three Tales},
  author={Henry, Teague R},
  year={2021},
  publisher={PsyArXiv}
}

@article{gordon2017final,
  title={Final NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multisite research},
  author={Gordon, VM and Culp, MA and Wolinetz, CD},
  journal={Clinical and Translational Science},
  volume={10},
  number={3},
  pages={130},
  year={2017},
  publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}
}

@misc{nosek2020best,
  title={The best time to argue about what a replication means? Before you do it},
  author={Nosek, Brian A and Errington, Timothy M},
  year={2020},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}

@article{teytelman2018no,
  title={No more excuses for non-reproducible methods},
  author={Teytelman, Lenny},
  journal={Nature},
  volume={560},
  number={7719},
  pages={411--412},
  year={2018},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}

@misc{errington2019reproducibility,
  title={Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology. Barriers to replicability in the process of research},
  author={Errington, T},
  year={2019}
}

@article{banga2022reproducibility,
  title={Reproducibility of in-vivo electrophysiological measurements in mice},
  author={Banga, Kush and Benson, Julius and Bonacchi, Niccol{\`o} and Bruijns, Sebastian A and Campbell, Rob and Chapuis, Ga{\"e}lle A and Churchland, Anne K and Davatolhagh, M Felicia and Lee, Hyun Dong and Faulkner, Mayo and others},
  journal={bioRxiv},
  year={2022},
  publisher={Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory}
}
@article{barton2022make,
  title={How to make models more useful},
  author={Barton, C Michael and Lee, Allen and Janssen, Marco A and van der Leeuw, Sander and Tucker, Gregory E and Porter, Cheryl and Greenberg, Joshua and Swantek, Laura and Frank, Karin and Chen, Min and others},
  journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume={119},
  number={35},
  pages={e2202112119},
  year={2022},
  publisher={National Acad Sciences}
}

@article{pineau2020machine,
  title={The machine learning reproducibility checklist},
  author={Pineau, Joelle and others},
  journal={URL: https://www. cs. mcgill. ca/\~{} jpineau/ReproducibilityChecklist. pdf},
  year={2020}
}

@article{gilmore2017video,
  title={Video can make behavioural science more reproducible},
  author={Gilmore, Rick O and Adolph, Karen E},
  journal={Nature human behaviour},
  volume={1},
  number={7},
  pages={1--2},
  year={2017},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}

@article{frank2017collaborative,
  title={A collaborative approach to infant research: Promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory-building},
  author={Frank, Michael C and Bergelson, Elika and Bergmann, Christina and Cristia, Alejandrina and Floccia, Caroline and Gervain, Judit and Hamlin, J Kiley and Hannon, Erin E and Kline, Melissa and Levelt, Claartje and others},
  journal={Infancy},
  volume={22},
  number={4},
  pages={421--435},
  year={2017},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}

@article{moody2022reproducibility,
  title={Reproducibility in the Social Sciences},
  author={Moody, James W and Keister, Lisa A and Ramos, Maria C},
  journal={Annual Review of Sociology},
  volume={48},
  year={2022},
  publisher={Annual Reviews}
}

@article{nosek_preregistration_2019,
	title = {Preregistration {Is} {Hard}, {And} {Worthwhile}},
	volume = {23},
	issn = {1364-6613},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661319301846},
	doi = {10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009},
	abstract = {Preregistration clarifies the distinction between planned and unplanned research by reducing unnoticed flexibility. This improves credibility of findings and calibration of uncertainty. However, making decisions before conducting analyses requires practice. During report writing, respecting both what was planned and what actually happened requires good judgment and humility in making claims.},
	language = {en},
	number = {10},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
	author = {Nosek, Brian A. and Beck, Emorie D. and Campbell, Lorne and Flake, Jessica K. and Hardwicke, Tom E. and Mellor, David T. and van ’t Veer, Anna E. and Vazire, Simine},
	month = oct,
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {confirmatory research, exploratory research, preregistration, reproducibility, transparency},
	pages = {815--818},
	file = {Submitted Version:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/44LZC28N/Nosek et al. - 2019 - Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile.pdf:application/pdf},
}

@article{breznau2022observing,
  title={Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty},
  author={Breznau, Nate and Rinke, Eike Mark and Wuttke, Alexander and Nguyen, Hung HV and Adem, Muna and Adriaans, Jule and Alvarez-Benjumea, Amalia and Andersen, Henrik K and Auer, Daniel and Azevedo, Flavio and others},
  journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume={119},
  number={44},
  pages={e2203150119},
  year={2022},
  publisher={National Acad Sciences}
}

@article{scheel2021excess,
  title={An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard Psychology literature with Registered Reports},
  author={Scheel, Anne M and Schijen, Mitchell RMJ and Lakens, Dani{\"e}l},
  journal={Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science},
  volume={4},
  number={2},
  pages={25152459211007467},
  year={2021},
  publisher={Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}
}

@misc{zpid_-_leibniz_institute_for_psychology_open_2019,
	title = {Open {Science} {Conference} 2019: {Simine} {Vazire}},
	shorttitle = {Open {Science} {Conference} 2019},
	url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1Ovx-OixE},
	abstract = {The Credibility Revolution in Psychological Science. Open Science Conference 2019, March 12-14, Trier, Germany. (Slides: http://bit.ly/2lyNNac) (Conference program: http://bit.ly/2keRUrE)

Conference presentations, abstracts etc. in ZPID's repository PsychArchives: http://bit.ly/2keRUrE


Simine Vazire's presentation: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/...

ZPID Conferences: https://conferences.leibniz-psycholog...},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	collaborator = {{ZPID - Leibniz Institute for Psychology} and Vazire, Simine},
	month = apr,
	year = {2019},
}

@article{bishop2018fallibility,
  title={Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others},
  author={Bishop, Dorothy VM},
  journal={Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science},
  volume={1},
  number={3},
  pages={432--438},
  year={2018},
  publisher={SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}
}

@article{hosseini2018doing,
  title={Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error},
  author={Hosseini, Mohammad and Hilhorst, Medard and de Beaufort, Inez and Fanelli, Daniele},
  journal={Science and engineering ethics},
  volume={24},
  number={1},
  pages={189--206},
  year={2018},
  publisher={Springer}
}


@MISC{Dattani2022-ul,
  title        = "Peer Review is not Working",
  author       = "Dattani, Saloni",
  month        =  aug,
  year         =  2022,
  howpublished = "podcast"
}

@article{bengio2020time,
  title={Time to rethink the publication process in machine learning},
  author={Bengio, Yoshua},
  journal={Retrieved January},
  volume={21},
  pages={2021},
  year={2020}
}

@techreport{timberg2021scientists,
  title={Scientists said claims about China creating the coronavirus were misleading. They went viral anyway.},
  author={Timberg, Craig},
  year={2021}
}

@article{eisen2022scientific,
  title={Scientific Publishing: Peer review without gatekeeping},
  author={Eisen, Michael B and Akhmanova, Anna and Behrens, Timothy E and Diedrichsen, J{\"o}rn and Harper, Diane M and Iordanova, Mihaela D and Weigel, Detlef and Zaidi, Mone},
  journal={Elife},
  volume={11},
  pages={e83889},
  year={2022},
  publisher={eLife Sciences Publications Limited}
}

@misc{bourg_bourg-04-01-2021mp4_nodate,
	title = {Bourg-04-01-2021.mp4},
	url = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/mq417aqg4f3sgsq/Bourg-04-01-2021.mp4?dl=0},
	abstract = {Shared with Dropbox},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Bourg, Chris},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/IM9UHRXU/Bourg-04-01-2021.html:text/html},
}

@misc{bohannon_whos_nodate,
	title = {Who's downloading pirated papers? {Everyone}},
	url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.352.6285.508},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Bohannon, John},
	file = {Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/CGYJFA6K/science.352.6285.html:text/html},
}


@MISC{Spitzer_undated-gt,
  title        = "Five Principles Of Science Communication",
  author       = "Spitzer, Suzi",
  howpublished = "\url{https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2018/04/five-principles-of-science-communication/}",
  note         = "Accessed: 2022-11-17"
}

@article{khoury2019science,
  title={Science--graphic art partnerships to increase research impact},
  author={Khoury, Colin K and Kisel, Yael and Kantar, Michael and Barber, Ellie and Ricciardi, Vincent and Klirs, Carni and Kucera, Leah and Mehrabi, Zia and Johnson, Nathanael and Klabin, Simone and others},
  journal={Communications Biology},
  volume={2},
  number={1},
  pages={1--5},
  year={2019},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}

@article{hohman2020communicating,
  title={Communicating with interactive articles},
  author={Hohman, Fred and Conlen, Matthew and Heer, Jeffrey and Chau, Duen Horng Polo},
  journal={Distill},
  volume={5},
  number={9},
  pages={e28},
  year={2020}
}

@article{chiarella2020using,
  title={Using alt text to make science Twitter more accessible for people with visual impairments},
  author={Chiarella, Domenico and Yarbrough, Justin and Jackson, Christopher A-L},
  journal={Nature communications},
  volume={11},
  number={1},
  pages={1--3},
  year={2020},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}


@MISC{Spitzer_undated-gt,
  title        = "Five Principles Of Science Communication",
  author       = "Spitzer, Suzi",
  howpublished = "\url{https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2018/04/five-principles-of-science-communication/}",
  note         = "Accessed: 2022-11-17"
}

@misc{yarkoni_no_2018,
	title = {No, it’s not {The} {Incentives}—it’s you},
	url = {https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/},
	abstract = {There’s a narrative I find kind of troubling, but that unfortunately seems to be growing more common in science. The core idea is that the mere existence of perverse incentives is a valid and…},
	language = {en-US},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {[citation needed]},
	author = {Yarkoni, Tal},
	month = oct,
	year = {2018},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/QNVVFXEQ/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you.html:text/html},
}

@misc{quintana_129_nodate,
	title = {129: {Transparency} audits},
	shorttitle = {129},
	url = {https://open.spotify.com/episode/29mLuNZblL7PYV02FmMBXK},
	abstract = {Listen to this episode from Everything Hertz on Spotify. Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schemes The specifics... The computational research integrity conference (https://cri-conf.org/) The transparancy leaderboard (https://etiennelebel.com/cs/t-leaderboard/t-leaderboard.html) proposed by Curate Science (https://curatescience.org/app/home) Our episode with Chris Jackson (https://everythinghertz.com/111), that James mentioned What about a transparency leaderboard for instiutions? What are the characteristics of grassroots reform schemes that worked? Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)  - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee\_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! \$1 a month: 20\% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show - \$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month  Episode citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, April 5) "129: Transparency audits", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JRNP8},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Quintana, Dan and Heathers, James},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/2CKDQSNN/29mLuNZblL7PYV02FmMBXK.html:text/html},
}

@article{tiokhin_competition_2021,
	title = {Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help},
	volume = {5},
	copyright = {2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited},
	issn = {2397-3374},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01040-1},
	doi = {10.1038/s41562-020-01040-1},
	abstract = {Incentives for priority of discovery are hypothesized to harm scientific reliability. Here, we evaluate this hypothesis by developing an evolutionary agent-based model of a competitive scientific process. We find that rewarding priority of discovery causes populations to culturally evolve towards conducting research with smaller samples. This reduces research reliability and the information value of the average study. Increased start-up costs for setting up single studies and increased payoffs for secondary results (also known as scoop protection) attenuate the negative effects of competition. Furthermore, large rewards for negative results promote the evolution of smaller sample sizes. Our results confirm the logical coherence of scoop protection reforms at several journals. Our results also imply that reforms to increase scientific efficiency, such as rapid journal turnaround times, may produce collateral damage by incentivizing lower-quality research; in contrast, reforms that increase start-up costs, such as pre-registration and registered reports, may generate incentives for higher-quality research.},
	language = {en},
	number = {7},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Nature Human Behaviour},
	author = {Tiokhin, Leonid and Yan, Minhua and Morgan, Thomas J. H.},
	month = jul,
	year = {2021},
	note = {Bandiera\_abtest: a
Cg\_type: Nature Research Journals
Number: 7
Primary\_atype: Research
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Subject\_term: Economics;Human behaviour
Subject\_term\_id: economics;human-behaviour},
	pages = {857--867},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/VME4RLIV/Tiokhin et al. - 2021 - Competition for priority harms the reliability of .pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/JY632JDK/s41562-020-01040-1.html:text/html},
}

@article{gewin_we_2021,
	title = {‘{We} need to talk’: ways to prevent collaborations breaking down},
	volume = {594},
	copyright = {2021 Nature},
	shorttitle = {‘{We} need to talk’},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01573-z},
	doi = {10.1038/d41586-021-01573-z},
	abstract = {Scientists who plan to partner on a research project should identify pressure points and consider a team charter at the outset.},
	language = {en},
	number = {7863},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Nature},
	author = {Gewin, Virginia},
	month = jun,
	year = {2021},
	note = {Bandiera\_abtest: a
Cg\_type: Career Feature
Number: 7863
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Subject\_term: Careers, Communication, Publishing},
	pages = {462--463},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/4AK59UJI/Gewin - 2021 - ‘We need to talk’ ways to prevent collaborations .pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/RFYYQR5C/d41586-021-01573-z.html:text/html},
}

@misc{gadlin_preempting_nodate,
	title = {Preempting {Discord}: {Prenuptial} {Agreements} for {Scientists} {\textbar} {ORI} - {The} {Office} of {Research} {Integrity}},
	url = {https://ori.hhs.gov/preempting-discord-prenuptial-agreements-scientists},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Gadlin, Howard and Jessar, Kevin},
	file = {Preempting Discord\: Prenuptial Agreements for Scientists | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/4V9IPM6K/preempting-discord-prenuptial-agreements-scientists.html:text/html},
}

@article{fox_protecting_2008,
	title = {Protecting peer review: {Correspondence} chronology and ethical analysis regarding {Logothetis} vs. {Shmuel} and {Leopold}},
	volume = {30},
	issn = {1065-9471},
	shorttitle = {Protecting peer review},
	url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715868/},
	doi = {10.1002/hbm.20682},
	abstract = {Editors of scientific journals are ethically bound to provide a fair and impartial peer‐review process and to protect the rights of contributing authors to publish research results. If, however, a dispute arises among investigators regarding data ownership and the right to publish, the ethical responsibilities of journal editors become more complex. The editors of Human Brain Mapping recently had the unusual experience of learning of an ongoing dispute regarding data‐access rights pertaining to a manuscript already accepted for publication. Herein the editors describe the nature of the dispute, the steps taken to explore and resolve the conflict, and discuss the ethical principles that govern such circumstances. Drawing on this experience and with the goal of avoiding future controversies, the editors have formulated a Data Rights Policy and a Data Rights Procedure for Human Brain Mapping. Human Brain Mapping adopts this policy effective immediately and respectfully suggests that other journals consider adopting this or similar policies. Hum Brain Mapp, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Human Brain Mapping},
	author = {Fox, Peter T. and Bullmore, Ed and Bandettini, Peter A. and Lancaster, Jack L.},
	month = dec,
	year = {2008},
	pmid = {19067328},
	pmcid = {PMC2715868},
	pages = {347--354},
	file = {PubMed Central Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/R9NEG9KA/Fox et al. - 2008 - Protecting peer review Correspondence chronology .pdf:application/pdf},
}

@article{halchenko_four_2015,
	title = {Four aspects to make science open “by design” and not as an after-thought},
	volume = {4},
	issn = {2047-217X},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0072-7},
	doi = {10.1186/s13742-015-0072-7},
	abstract = {Unrestricted dissemination of methodological developments in neuroimaging became the propelling force in advancing our understanding of brain function. However, despite such a rich legacy, it remains not uncommon to encounter software and datasets that are distributed under unnecessarily restricted terms, or that violate terms of third-party products (software or data). With this brief correspondence we would like to recapitulate four important aspects of scientific research practice, which should be taken into consideration as early as possible in the course of any project. Keeping these in check will help neuroimaging to stay at the forefront of the open science movement},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {GigaScience},
	author = {Halchenko, Yaroslav O. and Hanke, Michael},
	month = dec,
	year = {2015},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/4R8K6ZQM/Halchenko and Hanke - 2015 - Four aspects to make science open “by design” and .pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/2FJ9TBT4/2707572.html:text/html},
}

@misc{poldrack_intellectual_nodate,
	title = {Intellectual property — {Poldrack} {Lab} {Guide}},
	url = {https://poldracklab.github.io/research/intellectual_property.html},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Poldrack, Russell},
	file = {Intellectual property — Poldrack Lab Guide:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/BU8CVMBI/intellectual_property.html:text/html},
}
@article{aly_key_2018,
	title = {The key to a happy lab life is in the manual},
	volume = {561},
	copyright = {2021 Nature},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06167-w},
	doi = {10.1038/d41586-018-06167-w},
	abstract = {A well-crafted set of guidelines and advice can save time, reassure trainees and promote a positive lab culture, argues Mariam Aly.},
	language = {en},
	number = {7721},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Nature},
	author = {Aly, Mariam},
	month = sep,
	year = {2018},
	note = {Bandiera\_abtest: a
Cg\_type: World View
Number: 7721
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Subject\_term: Careers, Research management, Lab life},
	pages = {7--7},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/7A55LM6J/Aly - 2018 - The key to a happy lab life is in the manual.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/KR4JSL68/d41586-018-06167-w.html:text/html},
}

@misc{matias_universities_2021,
	title = {Universities {Say} {They} {Want} {More} {Diverse} {Faculties}. {So} {Why} {Is} {Academia} {Still} {So} {White}?},
	url = {https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universities-say-they-want-more-diverse-faculties-so-why-is-academia-still-so-white/},
	abstract = {When she was hired as a professor by Harvard University in 2013, Lorgia García Peña was the only Black Latina on a tenure track in the university’s Faculty of A…},
	language = {en-US},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {FiveThirtyEight},
	author = {Matias, J. Nathan and Lewis, Neil and Hope, Elan},
	month = sep,
	year = {2021}
}

@article{pownall_navigating_2021,
	title = {Navigating {Open} {Science} as {Early} {Career} {Feminist} {Researchers}},
	issn = {0361-6843},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211029255},
	doi = {10.1177/03616843211029255},
	abstract = {Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	journal = {Psychology of Women Quarterly},
	author = {Pownall, Madeleine and Talbot, Catherine V. and Henschel, Anna and Lautarescu, Alexandra and Lloyd, Kelly E. and Hartmann, Helena and Darda, Kohinoor M. and Tang, Karen T. Y. and Carmichael-Murphy, Parise and Siegel, Jaclyn A.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2021},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc},
	pages = {03616843211029255},
	file = {SAGE PDF Full Text:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/ESJ8RP33/Pownall et al. - 2021 - Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist R.pdf:application/pdf},
}

@techreport{malkinson_gender_2021,
	title = {Gender {Imbalance} in the {Editorial} {Activities} of a {Researcher}-led {Journal}},
	copyright = {© 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/},
	url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.09.467796v1},
	abstract = {Editorial decision-making is a fundamental element of the scientific enterprise. We examined whether contributions to editorial decisions at various stages of the publication process is subject to gender disparity, based on analytics collected by the biomedical researcher-led journal eLife. Despite efforts to increase women representation, the board of reviewing editors (BRE) was men-dominant (69\%). Moreover, authors suggested more men from the BRE pool, even after correcting for men’s numerical over-representation. Although women editors were proportionally involved in the initial editorial process, they were under-engaged in editorial activities involving reviewers and authors. Additionally, converging evidence showed gender homophily in manuscripts assignment, such that men Senior Editors over-engaged men Reviewing Editors. This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Malkinson, Tal Seidel and Terhune, Devin B. and Kollamkulam, Mathew and Guerreiro, Maria J. and Bassett, Dani S. and Makin, Tamar R.},
	month = nov,
	year = {2021},
	doi = {10.1101/2021.11.09.467796},
	note = {Company: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Distributor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Label: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Section: New Results
Type: article},
	pages = {2021.11.09.467796},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/5SW5VN2F/Malkinson et al. - 2021 - Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a .pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/EC2D5S6H/2021.11.09.html:text/html},
}

@misc{flatow_problem_nodate,
	title = {The {Problem} {With} '{Parachute} {Science}’},
	url = {https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/parachute-science-problem/},
	abstract = {In Indonesia, close to half of published studies on coral reefs included no local scientists.},
	language = {en-US},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Talma, Sheena and Stefanoudis, Paris},
	collaborator = {Flatow, Ira},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/M9B8P892/parachute-science-problem.html:text/html},
}

@misc{crew_women_nodate,
	title = {Women and minority researchers have more original ideas, but white men are rewarded faster},
	url = {https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/women-and-minority-researchers-have-more-original-ideas-but-white-men-are-rewarded-faster#.YXvr-ATODjg.twitter},
	abstract = {How many trailblazers have been sidelined?},
	urldate = {2021-11-19},
	author = {Crew, Bec},
	note = {Cg\_cat: Post},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/sadiezacharek/Zotero/storage/9R39R38F/women-and-minority-researchers-have-more-original-ideas-but-white-men-are-rewarded-faster.html:text/html},
}

@article{wapman2022quantifying,
  title={Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention},
  author={Wapman, K Hunter and Zhang, Sam and Clauset, Aaron and Larremore, Daniel B},
  journal={Nature},
  volume={610},
  number={7930},
  pages={120--127},
  year={2022},
  publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}