Search for: All records

A common challenge in developmental research is the amount of incomplete and missing data that occurs from respondents failing to complete tasks or questionnaires, as well as from disengaging from the study (i.e., attrition). This missingness can lead to biases in parameter estimates and, hence, in the interpretation of findings. These biases can be addressed through statistical techniques that adjust for missing data, such as multiple imputation. Although multiple imputation is highly effective, it has not been widely adopted by developmental scientists given barriers such as lack of training or misconceptions about imputation methods. Utilizing default methods within statistical software programs like listwise deletion is common but may introduce additional bias. This manuscript is intended to provide practical guidelines for developmental researchers to follow when examining their data for missingness, making decisions about how to handle that missingness and reporting the extent of missing data biases and specific multiple imputation procedures in publications. 

Abstract Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors:www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide:https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx). 

According to the justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge, people can truly know something only if they have a belief that is both justified and true (i.e., knowledge is JTB). This account was challenged by Gettier, who argued that JTB does not explain knowledge attributions in certain situations, later called “Gettier-type cases,” wherein protagonists are justified in believing something to be true, but their belief was correct only because of luck. Laypeople may not attribute knowledge to protagonists with justified but only luckily true beliefs. Although some research has found evidence for these so-called Gettier intuitions, Turri et al. found no evidence that participants attributed knowledge in a counterfeit-object Gettier-type case differently than in a matched case of JTB. In a large-scale, cross-cultural conceptual replication of Turri and colleagues’ Experiment 1 ( N = 4,724) using a within-participants design and three vignettes across 19 geopolitical regions, we did find evidence for Gettier intuitions; participants were 1.86 times more likely to attribute knowledge to protagonists in standard cases of JTB than to protagonists in Gettier-type cases. These results suggest that Gettier intuitions may be detectable across different scenarios and cultural contexts. However, the size of the Gettier intuition effect did vary by vignette, and the Turri et al. vignette produced the smallest effect, which was similar in size to that observed in the original study. Differences across vignettes suggest that epistemic intuitions may also depend on contextual factors unrelated to the criteria of knowledge, such as the characteristics of the protagonist being evaluated. 

The thermal contraction of aqueous cryoprotectant solutions on cooling to cryogenic temperatures is of practical importance in protein cryocrystallography and in biological cryopreservation. In the former case, differential contraction on cooling of protein molecules and their lattice relative to that of the internal and surrounding solvent may lead to crystal damage and the degradation of crystal diffraction properties. Here, the amorphous phase densities of aqueous solutions of glycerol and ethylene glycol at T = 77 K have been determined. Densities with accuracies of <0.5% to concentrations as low as 30%( w / v ) were determined by rapidly cooling drops with volumes as small as 70 pl, assessing their optical clarity and measuring their buoyancy in liquid nitrogen–argon solutions. The use of these densities in contraction matching of internal solvent to the available solvent spaces is complicated by several factors, most notably the exclusion of cryoprotectants from protein hydration shells and the expected deviation of the contraction behavior of hydration water from bulk water. The present methods and results will assist in developing rational approaches to cryoprotection and an understanding of solvent behavior in protein crystals.