Things you can do to contribute as of the end of SIPS (6/26 4:30pm)! 1. Give us ideas and feedback about what a FAQ / myth-busting resource should look like: [link to a google form][1] 2. Link us to basic methods reform and open science resources that you know of, including your slide decks: [editable resource doc here][2] 2. Volunteer to help edit or write our FAQ or manuscript: [list of volunteers and general topics here][3] 3. Look at our [cleaned up but in progress draft][4] or [our messy brainstorm document][5] Methods reforms that intend to improve the replicability and rigor of science (e.g., pre-registration, transparent reporting practices, open data), by their very nature evolve. New papers, blogs, comments, and tweets that relate to reproducibility and best practices in research appear on a weekly (if not daily) basis. It can be confusing! This hackathon aims to produce a FAQ-like resource on replicability-related methods reforms, which might include basic definitions, an introduction to and history of the recent reform movement in psychological science, information about interpreting results of replication studies, basic philosophy of science principles like the role of theory in research, summaries of and information relevant to specific debates (e.g., replication crisis or no crisis; whether rigorous research can be innovative; positive and negative consequences of the adoption of specific practices for the field and for individuals), as well as information and instruction on specific practices and developments in open science. Depending on the interests and opinions of the hackathon group, we will produce one or more documents addressing these issues. The document(s) aim to serve everyone, including novices and people who have expertise in some aspect of replicability and replicability-related reform. The FAQ(s) will aim to be balanced and objective (for example, using empirical evidence where relevant and available). We encourage anyone interested in the topic to participate, especially people who do not strongly identify with the open science movement or people who are critical of particular practices or reforms, or the reform movement broadly. l/forms/YdODvzY9CbzbBAHF3 [1]: https://goo.g [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxbIukO1yMXG9RNREGDnO2uKIFov9o0Zz94KZViduiA/edit?usp=sharing [3]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjVZqcNXHux445V-8ofSwl6OZCtwwCsulnRuTUTmLjk/edit?usp=sharing [4]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SjB9Tjq-oRFPPJu_1JnihBS6BKorvWIH9F4oGgc9_tM/edit?usp=sharing [5]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C3UdbxOmj1XapKaLXOGPmNXUOe2PDE7OOLO-jhynbZc/edit?usp=sharing