Meta's integrity efforts are at the heart of the company's mission to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together, because we want social technologies to be a place where people can express themselves freely, fairly, and safely around the world. Over the last few years, we have increased our investment in people and technology to minimize the effects of negative experiences people encounter on our platforms. The effectiveness of these efforts relies strongly on our partnerships with social scientists to conduct foundational and applied research around challenges pertaining to platform governance in domains such as misinformation, hate speech, violence and incitement, and coordinated harm. In this request for proposals RFP , Meta is offering awards to global social science researchers interested in exploring integrity issues related to social communication technologies. Our goal for these awards is to support the growth of scientific knowledge in these spaces and to contribute to a shared understanding across the broader scientific community and technology industry on how social technology companies can better address integrity issues on their platforms. Research is not restricted to focusing on Meta apps and technologies. Proposals are encouraged with the following two emphases:. Meta research awards provide support for independent research projects designed to be shared with the larger scientific, policy, and industry communities. These awards will be made as unrestricted gifts to allow investigators the freedom to deepen and extend their existing research portfolios to study the social impact of online interaction and information technologies. Most of the RFP awards are an unrestricted gift. All Meta teams are different and have different expectations concerning deliverables, timing, etc. Co-PIs are welcome! One person will need to be the primary PI i. Please note in your budget breakdown how the funds should be dispersed amongst PIs. It can be further disbursed by that institution. As mentioned above, we welcome submissions from multiple co-PIs from the same or different institutions on a single proposal. Generally, RFP winners that are awarded as gifts will be provided a standard Meta-branded gift letter requiring signature from an authorized university representative in order to initiate the payment process.
Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses
University representatives, administrators, or other partners with an interest in the specific terms can review below. The gift letter contains standard terms and conditions included in all Meta gift letters with academics, such as:. By submitting a proposal, applicants affirm that they have read and agree to these Terms and Conditions. Applications closed Foundational Integrity Research request for proposals. Award Recipients. University of Exeter Chico Camargo. University of Chicago Jean Decety. Cornell University Susan Fussell. University of Utah Marina Kogan. University of Pittsburgh Yu-Ru Lin. University of Exeter Mohsen Mosleh. Queensland University of Technology Michelle Riedlinger. Application Timeline Applications Open September 28, Winners Announced March Areas of Interest. Research areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Interventions to counter misinformation : We welcome proposals that explore how we can best measure the relative benefits and consequences of interventions to counter misinformation or provide access to authoritative content.In particular, we are interested in ways of reliably quantifying how these interventions can provide the most defense against harm. In particular, we are interested in understanding how people across different backgrounds, communities, and cultures interact with, are affected by, and decide to promote or share the spectrum of possibly problematic content. Studies that explicitly examine long-term exposure to these types of content or behaviors and their effects on people with deeper or longer engagement are encouraged. We are interested in understanding what aspects of the experience might help individuals engage more critically with or more consciously avoid problematic experiences. Measurement of perceptions and awareness of the prevalence or distribution of this content can be an additional impactful contribution. We are interested in projects that probe the connection between online speech and subsequent consequences of both offline and online harms. In particular, research that explores deterrents to online and offline problematic behavior related to dangerous speech and harmful conflict. Projects that focus on actors, content, and behaviors related to sharing inflammatory, offensive, or dangerous content are encouraged. We are also interested in understanding this space in markets with limited institutions, developing media markets, and variations in levels of democracy in non-Western contexts, or in additional contexts where sudden conflict crises have introduced new challenges. Misinformation across formats: We welcome proposals that investigate the role of non-textual media images, videos, audio, etc. This area includes basic multimedia like infographics, memes, and audio, compared to more-complex video and emerging technological advances. We will also accept studies focusing on the dynamics and effects of information diversity, whether from the user audience or content producer perspectives. Coordinated harm and inauthentic behavior: We welcome proposals that inspect information practices and flows across multiple communication technologies or mediums. In particular, individual, group, and community effects of information campaigns, inauthentic behavior, or coordinated activities across multiple communities, networks, channels, or platforms. Studies may in particular examine the impact of such harms on marginalized groups and communities. Digital literacy, demographics, and misinformation: We welcome proposals that explore the relation between digital literacy and vulnerability to misinformation in communication technologies. Especially in some emerging markets, social media platforms have gained many participants among those new to the internet and populations with lower exposure to technology. We are interested in research that informs efforts to incorporate technology effectively and contextually into underserved geographical regions. This includes studies of individuals, small groups, and larger communities, but also wider inquiries into factors that shape the context for the user experience online.
Meta-Research: COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected
Proposals should include A summary of the project one to two pages , in English, explaining the area of focus, a description of techniques, any relevant prior work, and a timeline with milestones and expected outcomes A draft budget description one page including an approximate cost of the award and explanation of how funds would be spent Curriculum Vitae for all project participants Organization details; this will include tax information and administrative contact details Eligibility The proposal must comply with applicable U. Applicants must be current faculty or employed in a role focused on research at an accredited academic institution, university, non-governmental institution, or non-profit organization. Students, including PhD students, are not eligible as applicants. Applicants must be the Principal Investigator on any resulting award. Meta cannot consider proposals submitted, prepared, or to be carried out by individuals residing in or affiliated with an academic institution, university, non-governmental institution, or non-profit located in a country or territory subject to comprehensive U. Government officials excluding faculty and staff of public universities, to the extent they may be considered government officials , political figures, and politically affiliated businesses all as determined by Meta in its sole discretion are not eligible. Applicants cannot be current employees or contractors at Meta or any of its affiliated brands. Budget and payment. Frequently Asked Questions. Do you typically limit the salary of the PI in the gift? We are flexible, but ideally proposals submitted are single-spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt font. The gift letter contains standard terms and conditions included in all Meta gift letters with academics, such as: The gift is inclusive of all fees and charges that may apply. The management and expenditure practices and any assessment applied to the gift shall be done in accordance with university policies and procedures. Meta will have no control or influence over the independent conduct of any studies or research performed using the gift, or over the dissemination of research findings. Meta may include a factual statement about the gift in its public reports or blog posts on the research. Meta is authorized to evaluate proposals submitted under its RFPs, to consult with outside experts, as needed, in evaluating proposals, and to grant or deny awards using criteria determined by Meta to be appropriate and at Meta sole discretion. Meta will not be required to treat any part of a proposal as confidential or protected by copyright, and may use, edit, modify, copy, reproduce and distribute all or a portion of the proposal in any manner for the sole purposes of administering the Meta RFP website and evaluating the contents of the proposal. Neither Meta nor the applicant is obligated to enter into a business transaction as a result of the proposal submission. Meta is under no obligation to review or consider the proposal. Feedback provided in a proposal regarding Meta products or services will not be treated as confidential or protected by copyright, and Meta is free to use such feedback on an unrestricted basis with no compensation to the applicant.
You are here
The submission of a proposal will not result in the transfer of ownership of any IP rights. Applicants represent and warrant that they have authority to submit a proposal in connection with a Meta RFP and to grant the rights set forth herein on behalf of their organization. All awards provided by Meta in connection with this RFP shall be used only in accordance with applicable laws and shall not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to facilitate any act that would constitute bribery or an illegal kickback, an illegal campaign contribution, or would otherwise violate any applicable anti-corruption or political activities law. If an applicant is selected as a winner or finalist, they will then have the opportunity to provide written notification that they do not consent to the research. Federal government websites often end in. The site is secure. As the scientific enterprise has grown in size and diversity, we need empirical evidence on the research process to test and apply interventions that make it more efficient and its results more reliable. Meta-research is an evolving scientific discipline that aims to evaluate and improve research practices. It includes thematic areas of methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward science. Much work is already done in this growing field, but efforts to-date are fragmented. We provide a map of ongoing efforts and discuss plans for connecting the multiple meta-research efforts across science worldwide. Meta-research is the science of evaluating how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward scientific investigation. Many initiatives focus on these important issues, and more can be done. Throughout the history of science, leading scientists have endeavoured to theorize and conduct research on fundamental aspects of the scientific method and to identify ways to implement it most efficiently. While focused subject matter questions and discoveries attract attention and accolades, the machinery of science relies greatly on progressive refinement of methods and improvement of theory verification processes. The large majority of the most used articles across science are about methodology [ 1 ], and many scientific prizes are awarded for the development of techniques e.
Meta-Analytic Methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide
Studying the scientific method in itself empirically is thus a topic of great potential value. In biomedical research in particular, lives can depend on the efficiency with which reliable evidence is generated and used. This challenge is increasing, in parallel with the clear success of the scientific enterprise, which has grown in both size and diversity. Several million new research papers are published annually, and the number of publishing authors in — exceeded, according to one estimate, 15 million [ 2 ]. Across biomedicine, the number of articles published is increasing, and the acceleration is becoming more prominent over time, e. Moreover, the wide availability of big data and the accumulation of huge amounts of data available often online create new opportunities and bias threats for the production of scientific knowledge, and they may challenge existing notions of data sharing, data ownership, research planning, collaboration, and replication. Mounting evidence suggests that the reproducibility of research findings in biomedicine and other disciplines is alarmingly low, that the scientific process is frustratingly inefficient, and that the number of false-positives in the literature exceedingly high; this may be a by-product of the growing complexity and multiplicity of observations, hypotheses, tests, and modifications thereof [ 3 — 8 ]. The geometric growth of the scientific corpus allows new opportunities for studying research practices with large-scale evidence and for testing empirically their effectiveness at producing the most reliable evidence. While one can theorize about biases e. Many ideas and solutions have been proposed about how to strengthen the research record, including, but not limited to, registration of studies, improved standards for reporting of research, wider even public availability of raw data and protocols, sharing, prespecification of hypotheses, improved statistical tools and choice of rules of inference, reproducibility checks and adoption of a replication culture, team work and consortia-building, minimization of conflicts of interest, and more [ 9 ]. Many scientists are already working on these solutions, because they realize that improving methods and practices within research is integral to their quest for better and more reliable research results in their own field.
The Online Safety Benchmark request for proposals
Some fields could benefit from the knowledge and experience that has accumulated in other fields where various solutions have been tested and applied. However, many scientists do not closely track what is happening in fields different from their own, even within their own broad discipline. Thus, independent fragmented efforts are made to solve what are intrinsically similar challenges, albeit in different manifestations and in different environments. It is possible that the best solutions may not be the same for all fields, e. However, one needs to see the big picture to identify the relevant similarities and differences. A research effort is needed that cuts across all disciplines, drawing from a wide range of methodologies and theoretical frameworks, and yet shares a common objective; that of helping science progress faster by conducting scientific research on research itself. This is the field of meta-research. As for all disciplines, multiple classifications are possible, and categories are inevitably overlapping. We believe it convenient to categorize meta-research into five major areas of interest: Methods, Reporting, Reproducibility, Evaluation, and Incentives. These correspond, respectively, with how to perform, communicate, verify, evaluate, and reward research. Table 1 lists the issues that are covered under each theme and some delineation of specific interests. Many scientists are currently working on these various aspects of meta-research, motivated by the common objective to improve the scientific enterprise, but tend to do it in methodologic or disciplinary silos; unlike a physical and organic chemist, who both recognize they are chemists, these reformers within science may not recognize that they are all working within the domain of meta-research.
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices
Given the types of questions addressed, meta-research interfaces with many other established disciplines. Meta-research includes both theoretical and empirical investigation. The former uses analytical as well as computational methods, the latter yields descriptive evidence e. For example, single meta-analyses that synthesize evidence on multiple studies on a specific question of interest are not within the primary remit of meta-research. This emphasis on the broader picture is typical of many meta-research investigations. We are in the process of mapping the influential meta-research literature and identifying the key players in this burgeoning field. By an iterative process of search and manual inspection, we have compiled a search string comprising 79 terms keywords, sentences, author identifiers that capture with good efficiency the five thematic areas described above. A search in the Scopus database using these terms, followed by manual inspection and cross-checked selection by two of the authors JPAI and DF , identified meta-research—relevant publications out of a starting list of 1, that have been published, across all disciplines, in the period January 1—May 16 alone. Identifying the boundaries of any discipline, let alone those of a highly cross-disciplinary field, is a dynamic and somewhat arbitrary process, which requires continuous updates and refinements. Therefore, a list of meta-research literature and details of the search strategy used will be posted on metrics.
Countries are attributed based on corresponding or first author address legend, from light yellow to red, respectively, to 1—5, 5—10, 10—20, 20—50, 50— publications. Dot size is proportional to number of papers range: 2— Papers were selected for inclusion from an initial list of 1, papers retrieved from the Scopus database using a combination of search terms aimed at capturing the core areas described in Table 1. Of the records selected for inclusion, country or affiliation data could not be retrieved for Scopus records, which therefore are not included in the map. Search terms, literature lists, and further details are available at metrics. The map and plots therein were generated anew, using the packages ggmap and ggplot2 implemented in the open source statistical software R. Image Credit: Daniele Fanelli. Table 2 shows an illustrative list of some existing initiatives that aim to address different portions of the meta-research agenda. This list is not complete, and the number of initiatives may continue to grow fast. The table aims only to give the reader a sense of the breadth of the various efforts that are ongoing. Many initiatives were launched only within the last few years. This diversity suggests that an effort is needed to better define and connect this rapidly growing discipline. The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford METRICS is one such effort that we have undertaken, with the primary objective to connect the disparate elements of this field and enhance their synergy and collective efficiency towards the goal of improving published research. It does this through primary research and creation of a research and policy-focused network of meta-researchers around the world. METRICS has recruited a large number of faculty, from multiple disciplines within and outside biomedicine, and scholars and graduate students at Stanford, has created a seed grant research program to support innovative research ideas in this area, and has started building further this meta-research community through speaker series, curriculum development, regular workshops, and other events. A major challenge for this center is to connect the much larger global community of meta-researchers and related stakeholders. As part of building and supporting this network, we plan to create an interactive online platform to inform and connect researchers working on these themes. No single center can cover this vast field alone, so we see METRICS as a partner and facilitator of the multiple other related scientific endeavors.
Kim Komando Today
A biannual meeting will help bring together scientists working in distant fields who are interested in improving research practices. The first of these meetings will take place at Stanford on November 19—20, A central goal of this community is to provide evidence-based guidance on policy initiatives to improve research quality. Such evidence should come not only from observational but also from experimental studies and through dialogue and engagement with key stakeholders from the public and private sectors. The most ambitious and durable transformations will likely require considerable realignment of the reward and incentive system in science. Funding agencies, institutional leaders, scientific journals, and the mass media will all be important partners in ensuring that the best science is designed, conducted, analyzed, published, disseminated, and ultimately rewarded. A strong educational curriculum and the development of training materials to equip researchers with the knowledge of best scientific practices will also be a critical component in accomplishing these goals. There is a need to train meta-researchers, in the same way we train immunologists or biologists or computer scientists, and not just expect that some scientists will keep finding their way into meta-research in somewhat random fashion. There is also a need to educate practicing scientists, not just meta-research specialists, on the importance of methods and rigorous, reproducible research practices. Most disciplinary training focuses on learning topical subject matter facts and technical skills that are field-specific and that can have a short half-life. Conversely, there is little training of future investigators and little continuing education of mature investigators on fundamental principles of research methods and practices.Beyond scientists, other key stakeholders, including media, journal editors, and funders can be educated on best research practices. Building such an educational curriculum may require integrating best research practices modules with required Responsible Conduct of Research training and evaluations and collaborating with other scholars to share best practices and facilitate shared learning, and creating online courses in specific methods areas. NIH recently issued a Request for Proposals for online training in this domain. Even the general public would benefit from exposure to these issues, and many activated consumer networks e. Funding all these efforts requires a substantial investment. Until recently, the few large-scale initiatives in this space, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, were based mostly on volunteering of idealistic individuals who cared about science and high-quality evidence. Most of that effort was invested on performing systematic reviews on topical questions of interest e. Most funding agencies have organized themselves into sections based on topical focus rather than widely applicable, cross disciplinary methods. This disease or discipline-specific paradigm does not lend itself to solving problems that cut across science more generally. Until now, mostly a few private foundations have been championing the cause of meta-research to improve research quality. However, it is encouraging to see several public funders e. The authors received no specific funding for this work. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. PLoS Biol. Published online Oct 2.
People Are Dating All Wrong, According to Data Science
John P. Steven N. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. Abstract As the scientific enterprise has grown in size and diversity, we need empirical evidence on the research process to test and apply interventions that make it more efficient and its results more reliable. Why Perform Research on Research? A Hot but Fragmented Scientific Discipline Many scientists are already working on these solutions, because they realize that improving methods and practices within research is integral to their quest for better and more reliable research results in their own field. What Is Included in the Discipline of Meta-research? Table 1 Major themes covered by meta-research. Open in a separate window. Fig 1. Number of meta-research—related publications registered by the Scopus database between January 1 and May 16 , by country of corresponding author and by affiliation of any coauthor. Meta-research—Related Initiatives Worldwide Table 2 shows an illustrative list of some existing initiatives that aim to address different portions of the meta-research agenda. Better Education in Better Research Practices A strong educational curriculum and the development of training materials to equip researchers with the knowledge of best scientific practices will also be a critical component in accomplishing these goals. Who Will Fund Research on Research? Funding Statement The authors received no specific funding for this work. References 1. PLoS One.January 11; —4. Circ Res. Manolagas SC, Kronenberg HM Reproducibility of results in preclinical studies: a perspective from the bone field. J Bone Miner Res. Fanelli D Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines Scientometrics 90 — Ioannidis JP How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. Copy Download. Methods : "performing research"—study design, methods, statistics, research synthesis, collaboration, and ethics. Biases and questionable practices in conducting research, methods to reduce such biases, meta-analysis, research synthesis, integration of evidence, crossdesign synthesis, collaborative team science and consortia, research integrity and ethics. Reporting : "communicating research"—reporting standards, study registration, disclosing conflicts of interest, information to patients, public, and policy-makers. Biases and questionable practices in reporting, explaining, disseminating and popularizing research, conflicts of interest disclosure and management, study registration and other bias-prevention measures, and methods to monitor and reduce such issues.
People Are Dating All Wrong, According to Data Science
Reproducibility : "verifying research"—sharing data and methods, repeatability, replicability, reproducibility, and self-correction. Obstacles to sharing data and methods, replication studies, replicability and reproducibility of published research, methods to improve them, effectiveness of correction and self-correction of the literature, and methods to improve them. Evaluation : "evaluating research"—prepublication peer review, postpublication peer review, research funding criteria, and other means of evaluating scientific quality. Effectiveness, costs, and benefits of old and new approaches to peer review and other science assessment methods, and methods to improve them. Incentives : "rewarding research": promotion criteria, rewards, and penalties in research evaluation for individuals, teams, and institutions. Accuracy, effectiveness, costs, and benefits of old and new approaches to ranking and evaluating the performance, quality, value of research, individuals, teams, and institutions. Systematic reviews of health care cochrane. Systematic reviews of social science campbellcollaboration. Evolution of fair tests of treatment jameslindlibrary. Clinical trials sctweb. Methods for research synthesis srsm. Standards for biology, natural, and life sciences biosharing. Collaboration center for proteome thehpp. Research ethics ethicscenter. Clinical trials registration clinicaltrials.Reporting standards for research equator-network. Communicating research in public senseaboutscience. Expert review of science news stories healthnewsreview. Open science in psychology and more centerforopenscience. Transparency in social sciences bitss. Best practices in social sciences bps. Reproducibility in political science politicalsciencereplication. Sharing data from clinical research yoda. Raw data on genotype and phenotype ncbi. Functional genomics repository ncbi. Reproducibility checks validation. Evidence on peer review peerreviewcongress. Tracking retractions of scientific articles retractionwatch. Postpublication comments ncbi. Preprint article repository arxiv.
Votre commentaire: