A collection of slides for virtually all presentations given by Center for Open Science staff since its founding in 2013.

The purpose of this course is to provide the student with a fundamental understanding of the principles of macroeconomics. Macroeconomists study how a country's economy works and try to determine the best choices to improve the overall wellbeing of a nation. Typical topics include inflation (the overall level of prices), employment, fiscal policy (government taxing and spending), and money and banking (interest rates and lending policies). By studying macroeconomics and understanding the critical ideas and tools used to measure economic data, the student will have a better perspective on the issues and problems discussed in contemporary economics. Upon successful completion of this course, the student will be able to: Discuss key macroeconomic concerns, including national income accounting, saving and investment, and market forces; Describe the determinants of total output and the ways to measure nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as well as real GDP; Compare and contrast definitions of total employment and unemployment, the three forms of unemployment, and inflation; Explain different ways of computing the general movement in prices, and define the relationship between inflation and unemployment; Explain the model of aggregate demand and aggregate supply; Analyze the government's role in the economy and examine how it uses its fiscal policy and monetary policy to influence macroeconomic variables in order to enable macro and micro economic stability; Describe the mechanics of money supply in detail. They will specifically be able to identify different types of money; explain the money creation process, the money multiplier, and the process of interest rate determination; and discuss the role of the Federal Reserve System and its tools of monetary policy; Identify and analyze major theories of economic growth; Analyze various strategies for developing of less-developed nations; Present the concepts behind international trade. (Economics 102; See also: Business Administration 201)

Principles of Macroeconomics 2e covers the scope and sequence of most introductory economics courses. The text includes many current examples, which are handled in a politically equitable way. The outcome is a balanced approach to the theory and application of economics concepts. The second edition has been thoroughly revised to increase clarity, update data and current event impacts, and incorporate the feedback from many reviewers and adopters.Changes made in Principles of Macroeconomics 2e are described in the preface and the transition guide to help instructors transition to the second edition.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Differentiate among a floating exchange rate, a soft peg, a hard peg, and a merged currency
Identify the tradeoffs that come with a floating exchange rate, a soft peg, a hard peg, and a merged currency

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Understand the arguments for and against requiring the U.S. federal budget to be balanced
Consider the long-run and short-run effects of a federal budget deficit

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Contrast expansionary monetary policy and contractionary monetary policy
Explain how monetary policy impacts interest rates and aggregate demand
Evaluate Federal Reserve decisions over the last forty years
Explain the significance of quantitative easing (QE)

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain crowding out and its effect on physical capital investment
Explain the relationship between budget deficits and interest rates
Identify why economic growth is tied to investments in physical capital, human capital, and technology

Background There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature. Methods and Results We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available. Conclusion A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.

The information provided on this website is designed to assist the extramural community in addressing rigor and transparency in NIH grant applications and progress reports. Scientific rigor and transparency in conducting biomedical research is key to the successful application of knowledge toward improving health outcomes.

Definition
Scientific rigor is the strict application of the scientific method to ensure unbiased and well-controlled experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results.

Goals
The NIH strives to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science. Grant applications instructions and the criteria by which reviewers are asked to evaluate the scientific merit of the application are intended to:

• ensure that NIH is funding the best and most rigorous science,
• highlight the need for applicants to describe details that may have been previously overlooked,
• highlight the need for reviewers to consider such details in their reviews through updated review language, and
• minimize additional burden.

An academic scientist’s professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive—getting it right—competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive—getting it published. This article develops strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.

In this lesson, students read the story of Sojourner Truth and discuss events that took place during her lifetime. Among these were the abolition of slavery and the effects of policies pertaining to abolition. Students will determine the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of policies, beginning with an analysis of costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of a policy that would allow them to take two years off of school before advancing to middle school. They will analyze the effects of policies noted in the book and continue the analysis by examining government policies.

The Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines include eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to implement and select a level of implementation for each. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards.

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.