In this episode Nick speaks with Dr Eike Rinke, Lecturer in Politics and Media, Co-Director of the Social Research Methods Centre, and Local Network Lead for the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN).

Eike discusses his academic journey, and reflects on how his experiences as a social scientist led him to become involved in the open research movement. The conversation explores why transparency, rigour and inclusivity matter across all disciplines, and why open research should be considered a universal concern rather than something confined to particular fields.

Eike discusses a research paper he contributed to that examines what happens when multiple research teams choose their own methodology to analyse the same dataset. The findings reveal striking variation in results depending on the analytical decisions made by researchers, highlighting the importance of transparency and the need to better understand researcher decision-making.

Nick and Eike also discuss Eike's role as local network lead for the UK Reproducibility Network and how they continue to collaborate to build a community of practice around open research at the University of Leeds.

Episode links:

• Social Sciences success at the 2024 Research Culture Awards
• Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty (2022)
• Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results (2018)
• Preregistration and the architecture of open science
• Nature is expanding Registered Reports to all the fields in which we publish
• (S7E3) Changing Behaviour with Daryl O'Connor: A Psychology Professor's Journey through Open Research
• (S8E7) Improving Research Quality with the UK Reproducibility Network: A Conversation with Marcus Munafò
• General | Leeds UK Reproducibility Network and Open Research Community (University of Leeds only)

If you have enjoyed listening to this episode, please consider leaving a review on your favourite podcast app, via Podchaser, or by submitting an online review form.

✍ Podchaser

✍ Online Review Form

All of our episodes can be accessed via the following playlists:

• Research Impact with Ged Hall (follow Ged on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
• Research Impact Heroes with Ged Hall
• Open Research with Nick Sheppard (follow Nick on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
• Research Careers with Ruth Winden (follow Ruth on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
• Research talent management
• Meet the Research Culturositists with Emma Spary (follow Emma on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
• Research co-production
• Research evaluation
• Research leadership
• Research professionals
• Academic failure with Taryn Bell (follow Taryn on Bluesky and LinkedIn)

Follow us on Bluesky: @researcherdevleeds.bsky.social (new episodes are announced here), @openresleeds.bsky.social, @researchcultureuol.bsky.social

Connect to us on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here too).

If you would like to contribute to a podcast episode get in touch: [email protected]

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be? You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be

Hello, and welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. My name is Nick Sheppard, and I'm open research advisor based in the library here at the University of Leeds. Now, most of the podcasts I've recorded, I've done so remotely, speaking to my guest on a laptop screen. So I'm very pleased to be sat just across the table from today's guest, Dr. Eike Rinke. So welcome to the podcast, Eike, and thanks for taking the time to speak to me.

Thank you, Nick. And yeah, thanks for welcome, uh welcoming me here.

So we've liaised and worked together now for several years in, in the context of open research, uh, mostly in the context of your role actually for the, as the local network lead for the UK Reproducibility Network or UKRN. I'm sure we'll talk about that more as we go. Uh, but it occurred to me actually that, uh, I know relatively little about your, what you might call your day job. So you're a lecturer I think in, uh, the School of Politics and International Studies. Is that right?

That's correct. I'm a lecturer in, uh, politics and media, uh, in POLIS, uh, the politics department. But I work at the intersection of politics and media and communication studies really.

Okay. Well then again, we can get, I think, into your, uh, um, academic context and, uh, and, and how that relates to open research as we go. Um, but like, like as I say, we have liaised a lot in the context of open research and, and that role you have as local network lead that we'll talk about. Uh, and in 2024, I even accepted a, a research culture award, um, on your behalf in the open research category. Um, I can't... You, you weren't- That's very true ... uh, of course, you weren't in the country at the time, I can't recall quite.

Yeah, I was traveling for a conference at the time.

Yeah. So where do you keep that a- a- award? It was quite a substantial trophy, as I recall. A bit of glass trophy, wasn't it?

It's, uh, in my... It's a wooden trophy.

Uh, oh, was it wooden? Yeah. I misremembered!

You got your materials wrong! No, it's, it's wooden trophy that's, uh, that hopefully is, uh, stored safely in my, uh, uh, office in the social sciences building, where I can't access it right now because that's under renovation.

Oh, so, so you're actually, um, separated from your, uh, from your, uh, award at the moment.

Sadly, yes.

Um, so as I say, you know, we'll obviously be talking today a lot about open research and, uh, the UK Reproducibility Network, but perhaps give us a, a little bit of a, a precis, a, an overview of your academic background, uh, as a lecturer in politics and media, did you say? Um, in the School of Politics and, um, how that, and d- did that contribute to your interest in open research?

Yeah. So my background, uh, in fact, is not in political science per se, but in, uh, but in media and communication studies, which is, uh, the field I, uh, acquired my, my PhD in. However, I've always worked at the intersection of politics and media and communication, so my PhD was in political communication, which is that sort of, uh, intersection overlapping field, uh, that covers both, uh, both disciplines essentially. And it was only in my postdoc that I transitioned over, uh, into political science, uh, sort of did a postdoc in a, a, a big political science institute in Ger- back in Germany, where I did my PhD as well. And, uh, sort of stayed sort of with one foot perhaps more firmly rooted in political science than in, uh, than communication, but they still are sort of straddling those two fields, uh, to this day. Um, yeah, so my work is, uh, in intr- in journalism and media systems, uh, as well as in, uh, what's called deliberation research. Uh, so inquiry about, uh, how people talk to each other politically, how, uh, society talks with it- with itself about, uh, uh, political matters, public affairs, uh, uh, from the micro level of individual conversations, just like the one that we're having here right now where it's, uh, two people in the same room chatting with each other, uh, all the way to the s- societal level of, uh, sort of institutions, uh, communicating, uh, around, uh, matters of public interest, uh, in- and tho- those ins- institutions most notably, of course, include, uh, sort of political institutions, but also journalism, uh, right, which is sort of can be thought of as an infrastructure of, uh, addressing, uh, sort of topics of general concern, uh, that are sort of, of, of current, uh, current interest. Yeah.

Of which there are many, I guess, in today's world, um, uh-

Well, there always are. They, they certainly don't seem to be coming any less.

But that, that's perhaps a different podcast. Yes. Perhaps can't go into too, too much detail around some of, some of the- Yeah. That's fine ... although that, I'm sure that'd be a fascinating conversation as well. But in the context of... So, so you're a social scientist?

Yes. Yeah. So I, I think that's, uh, the most accurate and, and sort of, uh, label to, to put on me really is, uh, and, and on my work, substantive work is, is, is that I'm a social scientist, uh, at, at heart. Yeah. '

Cause this is an interesting conversation, I think, that I've had with you before and other colleagues around, um, the disciplinary context for open research. And it, it, perhaps it comes largely from the social sciences, from psychology, um, and one of my challenges in my role is sort of applying open research to different fields. Um, but so your sort of heritage, if you like, with open science and open research go back quite a long way to, um, when you were doing your PhD perhaps?

Not quite that far away, but, uh, back, but, uh, during, I think it first started during my postdoc, but it was certainly inspired by, uh, by experiences I've, uh, I had made along the way until that point, uh, which, uh, when I first learned about, uh, early developments in open science, uh, in my field anyways, uh, made me feel very intrigued from the very start about, uh, about the idea of a movement trying to remedy what I think was quite clearly, uh, a widespread set of, uh, of issues, uh, with the way we were doing our research, huh.

Mm-hmm.

So that sort of- uh, absolutely has its roots in, uh, in my, uh, academic socialisation starting from, uh, uh, even before the PhD, I suppose, uh, during my, uh, sort of bachelor's and, and master's. Uh, but, uh, certainly really just sort of coalesced into this interest into, into, uh, open science, uh, in, uh, in, in the postdoc phase. Yeah, and so around 2016, so around 10 years ago, I think.

Could you... About the same as Brexit, actually, as well. Sorry to keep bringing it back to the other political aspect.

Was a, it was a bad year in general, but perhaps not, not personally- It just, it

j- just occurred to me that, that, that- ... in that

regard ...

in the context of your, um, yeah, as you say, your day job. But, um-

True ...

uh, d- you know, it's an issue. So what, what are perhaps some of those issues that as they apply to the social sciences perhaps more generally and specifically in your area, um, that, that, that means that open research and open science is, is important?

Yeah. So first of all, I think it's important to recognize, as always, that the social sciences is an incredibly broad-

Yeah

uh, tent. Uh, and there's a lot of different activities, research activities happening within that tent, uh, that will imply different ways in which, uh, open science questions, uh, will be taken up, uh, and, uh, be sort of inflected, uh, from, uh, from an individual researcher's point of view. So, uh, some- much of the work that, that happens within the so- uh, within that tent of the social sciences doesn't really, uh, connect very well, uh, to, to the kind of work that I do. Uh, so epistemologically, even ontologically, I think that there's such a variety and diversity in the social sciences, which is great, uh, of course, such that it's difficult for me to speak, uh, for the social sciences as such, and also, uh, much, much more, uh, difficult even to, for me to try to impose my own experience, uh, from my own, uh, substantive work onto the social sciences as a whole. That's just impossible. However, that, uh, having said that, I think the issues and, uh, that are conc- uh, concerning people interested in open research and open science, uh, are of such general nature that, uh, in principle, they apply, uh, in my view anyways, uh, to any research, uh, that is done within the broad tent of, uh, the social sciences and even beyond that. Uh, every researcher should ask, in my view, the princip- uh, uh, the, the fundamental questions around just how open and, uh, um, am I in the sense of how transparent, uh, am I, uh, being towards others about the work that I do, also towards myself about the work that I do. That's an important part of being a open researcher, is openness towards oneself. Honesty, you could say, towards oneself. Uh, what Richard Feynman, I think, called, uh, sort of radical, uh, uh, radical, uh, honesty about the work that we do. And, uh- Also in, uh, in the sense of just how inclusive am I being, just how much do I let others into my, uh, into the world of my research, and others, uh, including of course my peers as, as a researcher, but also, uh, the wider public. Uh, so in- including sort of, uh, stakeholders, uh, sort of obvious stakeholders, uh, policymakers and so on, but also, yeah, uh, the general public. Um, those are questions that I think every researcher, no matter what, uh, their epistemology, their ontological point of view, et cetera, should ask themselves. So I think open research really is universal in that, uh, quite basic way. Um, and, uh, of course I could talk a little bit more about, uh, uh, specifically the work that I do and how, uh, how open research relates to, uh, to that, how it's, uh, useful and, and important and, uh, should be translated, uh, from my per- from where I sit in, uh, in the tent of, uh, big tent of, uh, um, social sciences. Um, yeah, I don't know if you-

Yeah, well- ... want to go ... I mean, we perhaps, uh, I'm int- interested perhaps to pick up on a particular paper of yours, which I confess I haven't read in any detail, but I have seen you speak about your, um, is it Observing Many Researchers Using the Same Di- Data and Hypothesis Reveals a Hidden Universe of Uncertainty? That's the title, I think, and I will post a link to that in the, the show notes for this when it goes out, 'cause I think it's a fascinating area, and I've seen you talk- Mm ... about it several times, and it's quite frightening really, I suppose, in the context of, uh, that's what I got from it, in terms of how you can get quite different results depending on how you perform, what, what analyses you choose. I mean, again, I'm a layperson really- Mm ... but if you could tell us a little bit about that. I mean, is that- Yes ... that relates to open research and, and this is sort of meta science, is it? Um-

Yes, that's, uh, that's one important branch, I would say, of the broader open science movement is, which is the diagnostic br- uh, what I would call the diagnostic branch of open science, is a meta researcher, uh, in which we try to find out, uh, to have an honest look at our, our, our, ourselves and our, of the way, ways of work, uh, that we engage in as, uh, as academics, in order to identify the problems clearly, uh, uh, as clearly as possible, right? And to, because being conscious of the problems, uh, that might harm the credibility of the work that we do- Is an obvious, uh, first step and, uh, prerequisite to, uh, the po- even the possibility of, of coming up with, uh, solutions and, uh, getting, doing better, right? Yeah. Im-improving our work. So, so that's meta-research, and that's, uh, the diagnostic, uh, branch of, uh, of open science which this study absolutely belongs to. Yeah. Uh, the other branch, just to, uh, uh, be complete there is, uh, is the remedy branch or the treatment. Uh, uh- Yeah ... uh, I would say that, that, that you would, could then think up, uh, as, uh, uh, in response to clearly identified problems, uh, right, where, where you develop new practices like pre-registration, for example, registered report and so on, in order to ma-make things better. But I... It's helpful, I think, to distinguish these two kinds of activities, uh, under the umbrella of, uh, of open science. Um, and yes, uh, the study falls into the, uh, the meta-research diagnostic, uh, uh, branch. And yeah, what, what, what we did there, j-just briefly put, is to do what's called, uh, a, a one data set many analysts, uh, uh, study where we crowdsourced or recruited, uh, uh, a bunch of, uh, fellow, uh, fellow academics, teams of academics as well around the world, who were interested obviously in, uh, in the question, uh, that we were posing, which is all about the robustness of, uh, of analytical, uh, pipelines in, in social science. So there's a predecessor study, uh, to, to this, uh, which, uh, which had come out at the time already, which was quite influential and still is, uh, as well by a guy called Silberzahn and colleagues, uh, in which, uh, they did pretty much the same thing and found out that, uh, if they, uh, gave a dataset, uh, to, uh, to a bunch of different researchers and asked them, uh, to, from that dataset, uh, to, uh, sort of answer a, a given research question, the answers they would get were quite, uh, diverse and, uh, and, and different, uh, uh, depending on who ran the analysis. So what we did was, uh, was something similar in a more applied, more realistic you could say, ecolo- ecologically valid perhaps, uh, uh, way with an actual, uh, research si- uh, research hypothesis that had been studied and, uh, and published on, uh, previously using a dataset that als- also is frequently used, uh, in the social sciences.

So you're trying to reproduce it in, in a way?

Yeah. So there, there's a reproduction part to, to it, but then, uh, the more interesting part really was the, is a sort of rep- a reproduction of a previously published study. But the, the more interesting part was the one where we let, uh, let our research teams off the leash, if you will and, and told them to just do whatever they wanted to do rather than just reproduce the original study in order to answer, uh, the research question, which remained the same, uh, as best as they could, uh, given the dataset. And, uh, that's when, uh, where the interesting findings arose, uh, where, uh, in which we found that there was a huge variety of answers that we received back from our research team. So those were more than 80 teams, uh, I think.

And that's not an understatement, is it? I mean, it is really quite dramatic how different answers came through from my recollection.

Yes. Yes. So, uh, very much, uh, a sort of a stunning, uh, uh, a stunning va- uh, variance in the, uh, in the results we received. More variance that we as the sort of PIs on this project, uh, thought we would, uh, observe. And of course, uh, like you said, it's, uh, it's at first a, a bit frightening, uh, to think, uh, uh, that, uh, that- How

dependent a result can be on the choices made, I suppose.

Right, right. Is what it comes down to. You keep the, you keep the hypothesis constant, you keep the data set constant, uh, and all that changes is, uh, the way that researchers look at this and attempt to produce an answer, uh, right? And, and then it varies, uh, uh, uh, quite a bit. And, uh, usually that's of course some- uh, a process that we do not get to observe, right? So the beauty of this kind of study design is that you make observable, uh, the variety of ways you can go as a researcher, and not only the ways you can go, but the ways that people actually go, right? Because the results we were, uh, sent back by our research teams were the results that they thought were the best possible answer they could come up with, uh, to, to the research question. Yeah. To the test of that hypothesis. So it gives us an, uh, a rare glimpse into, uh, a usually unobservable sort of universe of researcher decisions and, uh, the impact those decis- decisions have on the outcomes we will get, right? Uh, now the, the pessimistic way of looking at this, of course, is to say, "Oh my God, uh, obviously, uh, social science work is very unreliable." Uh, the, if, uh, you, uh, cannot be sure whether the next best researcher whom you would give the same hypothesis and the same data set to would, uh, wouldn't come up with a completely different answer to, to the, uh, to the question of whether that hypothesis, uh, is supported or not. However, I, I prefer to take a more optimistic, uh, sort of view on this in, in that I think, uh, what really this study has done, like others like it, is to, uh, highlight an important problem simply that, uh, that we cannot afford to ignore really. Yeah. That's like I said earlier, with regards to that distinction between diagnostic and, and, uh, sort of diagnosis and treatment. That's a, a necessary step for us to be, uh, to become better. Yeah. Right? And, uh, it does not as- in itself imply that social science as such is doomed to be- Yeah ... uh, to be unreliable and, uh, and, and lacking credibility. Far from it. Um, I think what it does, uh, make is, uh, a renewed case, uh, for transparency, also humility, uh, and also, of course, uh, for the sort of, uh, training in and application of techniques, uh, that serve to minimize, uh, uh, the, uh, the variance, uh, that we observed or at least to make it visible, uh, on a more frequent basis. So as a r- in- individual, intra- individual researcher, for example, you have, I think, in the year t- uh, 2026, where we are right now, much, much stronger, uh, sort of rationale and indeed, or perhaps obligation to test the stability of your findings and to be transparent about it. Uh, uh- Yeah ... um, you can run, of course, a variety of, uh, research pipelines on the same dataset yourself, right? You don't need 80 researchers for this. You can test yourself for, well, what would my research, uh, results have looked like had I run the analysis, uh, slightly differently? Had I sliced the data perhaps a l- a little bit differently in a way that would still be plausible? And that's something that wasn't definitely a standard procedure 10 years ago. Yeah. Absolutely not. Today, I think as a result of studies l- like ours, I think it's, uh, it's more incumbent on-

Yeah ...

on, uh, researchers to take that extra step in order to increase- Yeah ... uh, the sort of, uh, trust, uh, we can put into, uh, into the results. So I, I all see it in a, uh, in a sort of perspective of research improvement, um, towards greater credibility and robustness, which, uh, I continue to think even though, uh, the results initially were quite depressing, are absolutely within reach for, for our discipline.

Yeah. And you, you mentioned, uh, pre-registration there which I have talked about on this podcast before with, uh, other colleagues. Um, that's one way perhaps of mitigating or making transparent these types of decisions. Can you, for those that aren't aware, perhaps give us a quick summary of... would that help in this, in this sort of scenario, the act of pre-registration?

Yes. So pre-registration is, uh, absolutely, uh, a measure that, uh, that's also in the toolkit of researchers today, which it wasn't, uh, at least as a default, uh, uh, just 10 years ago, let's say. Uh, wherein you, uh, sort of start, uh, in the planning stages of, of a research project to already become public and open about it, uh, in the sense that you devise your plan, you think very clearly about what it is that you want to do, and you think it through till the end, right? You, uh, which in itself is, is, uh, good, good practice, I would say. Not just to plunge into a, a project willy-nilly and then, uh, just see how it goes, but to actually sort of think ahead. Be clear about, uh, what the objectives of your, uh, of your research are and how you plan on achieving those objectives, uh, and in the re- case of empirical research, oftentimes that means thinking clearly about the design, the measurements, uh, that you, uh, that you're going to, to take, and, uh, the most importantly, perhaps the analysis strategy that you want to, uh, want to apply in the end to get to those objectives. It wasn't, uh, I'm afraid to say, common practice, uh, always for, for social researchers to think about all these things, as obvious as they might seem as important to think ahead of, uh, to do this, right? To, to, to, uh, to look ahead to, to what am I actually going to do in detail, uh, later on. Oftentimes that was left for later, uh, in, uh, in the conduct of research. And, uh, that's something that pre-registration, uh, that, uh, wants to sort of do away with in the sense that, uh, pre-registration means a pre-registered, uh, publicly listed, uh, record of, uh, your plans, uh, from where you are right now in the planning stages of your, of your project all the way until the final execution of the data analysis and the conclusions you draw from the analysis as well. So to, to have a clear sort of plan for the future that's publicly accessible and, uh, uh, unalterable as well, right? So it cannot be tempered with later on, such that everyone who, who has access to it, can see what, what it was that you planned on doing initially before you did it. Which ties your hands to some extent, uh, or at least makes you accountable. Obviously, you can still, if you find out that your research plan had fundamental flaws or you would like to do something in addition to what you, uh, sort of put down in the preregistered plan, you can still extend and, uh, you can still be flexible. Uh, so in the sense that, uh, the sort of metaphor of the tied hand isn't re-really true, uh, uh, it's more that, uh, uh, you're... There is this clearer con-continuity in the observability of your own work, uh- Yeah ... as, as a researcher, right? Yeah. Where the public knows where you started and where you, uh, uh, and can compare that with where you ended up.

Yeah.

And if there's a, a big consi-inconsistency between these two things, then that raises questions.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah. And I've, I've spoken to, you know, as I say, to other colleagues who will come onto UKRN in a moment, uh, uh, around this. I mean, is it still... I-Is it practiced as much as it should be, do you think, yet? I mean, it's not, it's not... It's, it's increasingly used, but not perhaps to the extent that it should be in the social sciences, would you say?

Uh- Ideally, uh, you, you would have preregistration in the vast majority of any research that is not exploratory in nature or claims to be not exploratory. If there's, uh, if there is a confirmatory, uh, element to, to your research, I think it should be s-thought of right now as, uh, obligatory to, uh, think of preregistering, uh, your, your plan. Uh, that doesn't, uh, take away any of the value of exploratory research, just to be clear about this as well. But I think we, uh, also, uh, in, in practice, we have made some big improvements. Prere-preregistration today is, uh, an established term, which it wasn't 10 years ago, uh. Uh, it is today. Everyone, I think most any, uh, social scientist today knows what preregistration is. That it's something that they should be doing if they want to sort of conform to best practice, and that sort of shift of norms is in its- in itself a great success, I think. Does it mean that it's, uh, as much of a norm as it should be in- Yeah ... practice? I don't think so. It certainly has improved. It most, uh, has most improved hearteningly, hearteningly, I think, in the top journals in our fields, so that, uh, if, if there was, uh, perhaps a doubt sometimes about, uh, the sort of scientific value of journals, uh, and especially for-profit journals, uh, as such, uh, I think there's a case to be made for, for journals have improving some value, uh, in especially the, uh, sort of most visible elite journals, uh, in that they were uh, sort of instrumental in, uh, in bringing about that norm shift just by requiring or that, uh, sort of, uh, rewarding, uh, those good open research practices. Uh, that's I think in many top journals in my field anyways, it, uh, is perhaps not quite yet, uh, strictly required, but certainly beneficial to engage in pre-registration to, to be able to say, "Hey, my study was pre-registered. Here's the record, and we followed up on, uh, uh, through on that, on the plan, uh, that we pre-re- uh, pre-registered." Um But yeah, we're not at 100%, obviously '

Cause it, I mean, it's a research culture issue, isn't it? I mean, the, the, the, the... You just talking there makes me think of, you know, the incentives around research and, um, this is the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, and it's about the- Mm ... broader research culture, and this is part of that, isn't it? You know, what incentivizes people, you know, the things like the publish or perish culture and how important it is to, you know, p- people potentially salami slicing data to do lots of publications and the, um, the, the, the tendency to look for positive results. All these kinds of things maybe feed into that. So we are sort of shifting that dial perhaps a little bit, but, uh-

Yes. But- I think, uh, the, the publication system, especially at the top, I think, is, is a space where you can observe a lot of tension between- Yeah ... different incentives.

Yeah.

And, uh, the publish and or perish, uh, sort of culture, I'm afraid is still very alive and- Yeah and around. Um, however, what it takes to, to publish, uh, especially in the top journals, that's ha- that has somewhat shifted, I think, uh- Yeah, mm-hmm ... and that's the heartening part, right? Uh, there's, uh, still certain, uh, certainly, um, a perception that if your results are boring, quote unquote, uh, you will find it harder to, uh, to publish your, your work in a, in a top journal. However, a- and that's the traditional, uh, sort of quite deplorable, uh, state of affairs that we've had for decades now- Mm-hmm ... I think. However, I think in addition to, uh, to that sort of push for novelty, if you will, that has been quite deleterious, uh, in, uh, in, uh, over time. We now have that, uh, that additional sort of re- rekindled interest in rigor, I think. Mm. And that's, uh, that's partly, uh, sort of achievement of the open science movement, I think, where this, uh, it's not all about novelty. You, uh, but the bar for claiming that you've, uh, have something, uh, interesting and, uh, sufficiently credible to say, uh, from a rigor perspective is higher now. So, uh, i- in the sense that, uh, pre-registration, uh, is, is s- sort of a big sort of advantage if you, if you want to, to make a strong case, uh, for novelty and interestingness, uh-

Yeah

um, and then of, of, of course, there, there are other open science practices that are are today mandatory in many cases in, uh, for the top terms like publishing your data if, if they are publishable in principle, if, uh, uh, p- definitely publishing your analytical code, right? Uh, because that's usually not privacy sensitive at all. Uh, it should be out there whether your data, uh, can be published or not. Uh, and, uh, also a, a drive to- towards, uh, sort of novel forms that Uh, that, that, that sort of codif- uh, codified the, the spirit of, of pre-registration in a new publication format like registered reports, for example, which more and more top journals also, um, also allow at least. Uh, I think there was a, uh, was news just two weeks ago or so that the Nature group, Nature, the, uh, sort of leading journal, uh, is now allowing registered reports across- Yeah, yeah. That's right ... all disciplinary fields. Uh, so you see that movement at the top, uh, those increasing, uh, standards of, of rigor and transparency, and, uh, that is very heartening, right? Yeah. Just to perhaps, uh, for view- uh, to explain to viewers, uh, registered reports are simply, uh, a specific, uh, research publication format in which you submit your, uh, your research plan, uh, so what you want to re- pre-register, uh, in a pre-registration to a journal. They assess it in a, uh, in peer review as, as we know it, uh, and if the plan, uh, comes out as sound and acceptable to reviewers, you, uh, you obtain what's, uh, what's called a, a sort of agreement in principle. Yeah. And, or acceptance in principle, and you are allowed to just go forth and do your research, um, and just report it faithfully, uh, to, uh, in, in relation to, to your original plan. And, uh, regardless what the results are of that, of you doing this, uh, uh, this of, uh, uh, carrying out your plan, you will, uh, you will be accepted. Uh, your, your paper will- Yeah ... will be published in that journal. Uh, and, uh, that's just, uh, the... Once you've done that, you've written up your study, you resubmit it to, uh, to the journal, and they, uh, subject it to stage, what's called stage two review, uh, where the focus is not on the interestingness of your findings or anything like that, uh, but is simply to check whether, uh, you actually followed through on your plan that you submitted for stage one review. And if you did that, then your s- your paper will be published- Yeah ... regardless of the results, and that obviously, that opens the door to publications of null results much more, right? Which, uh, 10, 15 years ago, uh, many senior colleagues, for example, would have said that's, that's the death of your, uh, wish to publish, is if you don't, uh, don't have a positive finding. If your, if your hypothesis test fails flat, uh, then you sh- are best off shelving that study and starting a new, uh, starting a new. Or you could look-

Which is not how research should work, of course, is it? I mean, essentially, and that's where we're getting to. So that's fascinating. I'm just slightly conscious of time because I know you're a very busy man, and you've got, uh, uh, elsewhere to be relatively soon. But it is a fascinating paper, this, uh, and I will link it. Um, I don't know if there's a, a digestible talk that you've done because I've seen you t-talk about it. Maybe we can talk about that another time if you c- if there is one around that I can link to. But I just, you know, bearing in mind, uh, uh, y-your time and, uh, you've got lots going on. You're, so you're, uh, involved with the Social Research Methods Centre. I think this covers some of what we've already been talking about, so perhaps we haven't got time now to go into any more details about that. But colleagues can look, look that up, can't they, and become involved with the Social Research Methods Centre.

I, I would love for, uh, so I'm a co-director together with my colleague Jose Pina-Sanchez, um, of the Social Research Methods Centre. Um, I would love for any social researcher and those adjacent to social research to, to be aware of us, uh, at, at the University of Leeds, so where we sort of offer, uh, training, uh, resources, events, uh, uh, to... And, and general support, uh, from a methods perspective, to, to, to researchers doing social research in a broad sense, and that includes, of course, uh, sort of support with, uh, in-instituting, implementing open research practices as well.

Yeah, no, and again, I'll post links to that. But, uh, to, I suppose to come back round to UKRN, the UK Reproducibility Network, and your role as lo-local network lead. So I have, uh, on the podcast before, I've actually spoken with, uh, our colleague, Professor Daryl O'Connor. So he's the institutional lead, isn't he, for the, um, uh, the UKRN, and, um, he-- I think I spoke with him actually about pre-registration, and again, I'll link these posts in the show notes if people want to follow up. Uh, and I've also spoken to Marcus Manafo, um, who I'm sure you know is, uh, one of the co-founders of, uh, UKRN. But yeah, perhaps tell us a little bit, uh, before we finish around that role as local network lead. You've been doing it for quite a long time, and I think it might be time for you to step down, so we're also potentially trying to encourage colleagues, aren't we, to become more involved with, with this work and, uh, potentially, uh, you know, if anybody was interested in taking on that role, then, uh, I'll give you an opportunity perhaps to, to pitch that before we finish.

Yeah, so the role of local network lead is, is sort of embedded, deeply embedded in, in, uh, the organizational structure of, of, of UKRN, uh, in that, uh, essentially within UKRN there are three broad, uh, groups of members, uh, the first being the institutional leads that you- Perhaps,

sorry, perhaps we could just very quickly define UKRN. I mean, uh, the, um-

Yeah. So, uh, so UKRN is the UK Reproducibility Network. So, so consortium, uh, uh, peer-led consortium of researchers essentially across the UK, uh, who work together to ensure that the UK retains its place, uh, in, uh, at the top of, uh, sort of, sort, uh, science production, scientific production, production of high-quality research. So we're broadly interested in research quality, including tran- uh, most notably research transparency and rigor. Uh, that's broadly it, and that, uh, UKRN does that, uh, by, uh, supporting, uh, communities around, uh, around those issues, uh, locally but also nationally, uh, producing, uh, training materials, resources, training opportunities, and, uh, generally supporting the dissemination of good practices, uh, in, in research. Um, so- That's the general mission statement. UKREN is made up of those three main groups, uh, which is the institutional leads, uh, in, uh, institutional members with wherein institutions are usually universities, uh, and there's usually one lead per university who has, uh, joined, uh, UKREN. There is the stakeholders group, uh, of external, uh, sort of research organizations, funders, uh, publishers, uh, and so on. And then there is the local network leads, uh, who are the representatives, uh, tives of, uh, the local grassroots l- uh, networks of academics interested in matters of open research, research transparency, and research rigor. Uh, usually which, which, uh, are present in many, uh, uh, on many campuses across the UK, more than, uh, the institutional members, in fact, right? So not ev- not every university that, uh, is not an institutional member, uh, does therefore not have a, uh, have, have a lo- local network. Conversely, I mean, the, the most, uh, most, most campuses today, I think in, in the UK have a UK-- local UKRN network And that's what I'm the local network lead for at Leeds. Uh, and, uh, the main purpose of this, uh, role is to organize local community across faculties, across schools, around those, uh, core issues of open research, research transparency, and research rigor. Uh, and yeah, there's-- uh, it's an informal role in that, uh, you get to reach out and identify interest in those, uh, uh, things, uh, and to sort of crystallize it into activity, uh, on, on campus by reaching out, uh, to people who are interested in these themes, reaching out to the, uh, institution itself, work together with, uh, people like you, uh, yourself, uh, who has, uh, uh, been, uh, incredibly helpful over the years, uh, in, uh, sort of, uh, promoting open research and more credible research, uh, at, at Leeds. And, uh, just to, uh, think quite openly about, uh, um, the many different ways in which, uh, you can support this, uh, uh, this kind of discourse, uh, with these discussions in, uh, on, on campus. Uh, so the most obvious, uh, uh, activity in that regard is for us to maintain, uh, a Teams, uh, space where, where we have more than 200, uh, members, uh, uh, from around campus, uh, who get to learn and, and discuss about open research, uh, developments, uh, new, uh, tools, resources, uh, publications, uh, events, uh, that are happening.

Community building we're interested in- Yes ... aren't we? We're trying to build a community. And again, I'll post a link to that team if colleagues do want to join.

Yes, absolutely. And, uh, it's been a pleasure to, to, to find, uh, that, uh, through that role of, uh, that I've, uh, sort of fulfilled for, I think almost seven years now, um, that, uh, really there is interest and relevance, uh, of those, uh, bigger thi- uh, themes within UKRN in every, uh, faculty, uh, across our campus. Uh, right? So you get to meet, uh, very different people from very different, uh, sort of academic traditions and, uh, orientations, but they all Uh, can relate, uh, and connect to the core themes of UKRN. Also, we've, uh, w- what I've been glad to see is that we do have a fairly active, uh, n- sort of regional network of local network leads in the, uh, in the Yorkshire and Humber region, uh-

Which again, I stood in for you recently, didn't I? 'Cause again, you were too busy, so I actually attended on your behalf-

Yes, yes ... to, uh, to

that meeting recently. So

there were two-- So that was the second of, uh, uh, second meeting that we had, uh, which, yeah, thank, thank you again for, for-

I'll collect your awards. I'll do the, you know.

Well, yeah. Um, I'm glad to have you, let's say. Uh, and, uh, so, so that's a really nice development because, uh, in Leeds alone, we now have, uh, I believe four local networks, right? So, uh, it's not only University of Leeds, uh, as sort of the research powerhouse in Leeds, but also Leeds Beckett, uh, University has a local network. Uh, Leeds Trinity, uh, University has a, has a local network, and even Leeds Arts University has its own local network, right? So y- with, uh, Leeds in a, uh, as a city already gets to showcase the breadth, uh, of, uh, the discussions, uh,

and- And we can all learn from each other. You know, I certainly did when I went to that event at, uh, Leeds Beckett. I used to work at Leeds Beckett, and obviously there's this different context, and we're all learning from each other.

Yes, it's fance, uh, fan, uh, f- uh, fascinating to, to, to learn how arts people and, and also sort of colleagues from more, uh, sort of application, um, uh, uh, applied, uh, sort of perspectives at, at Leeds Beckett, for example, um, get to s- get to look at open research. And, uh, certainly is, is a very fulfilling part of the work to, to sort of strike those connections, uh, be in conversations with these people. So it's a very Uh, fulfilling, uh, and, and rewarding, uh, sort of, uh, role that I hope I will be, uh, we will, uh, sort of be able to, to find a, a, a good successor for, uh, uh, in the

months to come. So if colleagues are, are interested, they can get in touch with you. We'll, we'll, we'll, we'll do more sort of promotion around this in conversations. And again, it really is just about this building this community, isn't it? And, uh, but as I say, you've done seven years, it's probably ... And you, you've got lots of other things going on, so perhaps it's time for you to-

We need some, uh, fresh blood, I think. Yes.

So again, I, I think we've kept you slightly longer than you wanted because, um, I think you've got elsewhere- Yes to be, uh, very soon, but, uh, thank you, Eike, for your time. That was great. It's always nice to, to speak to you as, you know, everybody's busy, it's not always, uh ... You know, we have spoken a lot and c- as I say, various over the years, but it's, it's difficult sometimes to find the time just for a conversation like this, so it's been great. Thank you very much and, uh, good, uh, enjoy the rest of your day. Thank

you. Thanks for having me, Nick. It was brilliant.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Bye.

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five-star rating and written review, as it helps other research culturists find us. And please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe. Thanks for listening, and here's to you and your research culture.