jeremykoster.bsky.social
Aligning incentives for better science - quality over status
Signer of DORA: https://sfdora.org/
Co-director of ENDOW project: https://endowproject.github.io/
Interdisciplinary socio-ecological scientist advocating for congruence of theory, data, and stats
175 posts
1,957 followers
197 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Photographer extraordinaire
comment in response to
post
Welcome to Blue Sky, @marvimatos.bsky.social, and thank you for the reminder that federal funding for science is like rocket fuel for the economy:
www.forbes.com/sites/johndr...
comment in response to
post
Arguably the 2nd-most valuable player on that 1984 Tigers team (second to Trammell in Wins Above Replacement, that is):
www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/19...
comment in response to
post
academic.oup.com/ej/article/1...
comment in response to
post
Here's another useful overview for modelers:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
In many respects, every chapter in the textbook, which summarizes current perspectives in human behavioral ecology, is an outgrowth of the challenging questions that emerged at the Man The Hunter conference, which highlighted the need for more empirical data and refined hypotheses to examine.
comment in response to
post
To illustrate the thoughtful ways that human behavioral ecologists engage with debates and diverse cross-cultural data about the sexual division of labor, the textbook chapter by Codding and Bliege Bird is a great place to start. The data defuse stereotypes.
www.cambridge.org/core/books/a...
comment in response to
post
Mike Gurven’s chapter on life history theory would be another one to read:
www.cambridge.org/core/books/a...
comment in response to
post
The first thing I did was to check the bibliography to see if this chapter was cited (it wasn’t):
www.cambridge.org/core/books/a...
comment in response to
post
These are fantastic data. Maybe try to make some of the video footage available as supplemental files.
comment in response to
post
“Eggs-ogenous Shocks”
🥺🤞
comment in response to
post
The National Science Foundation has recently supported research to help curtail future pandemics:
www.forbes.com/sites/michae...
comment in response to
post
Folks in the GEO community should know that I have seen Manda Adams dedicate extensive overtime hours to Coastlines and People during crunch panel season. She'll go the extra mile in the months ahead, but she and others will benefit from all the help that PIs and reviewers can muster. Hence the 🧵 ⬆️.
comment in response to
post
Also for early-career researchers, although program officers cannot share examples of funded proposals with you (except through FOIA), principal investigators *can* and often will share their proposals. See the award database and then reach out to funded researchers. (22)
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/...
comment in response to
post
Every June, NSF tends to get a slew of inquiries from principal investigators who had already started drafting a proposal without considering what program would review it. Program officers are normally happy to help find a good fit, but they'll be multitasking and slower to respond this summer. (21)
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, for early-career scholars contemplating a CAREER proposal, please note that those proposals are reviewed by core programs (Behavioral Systems, Sociology, Chemical Synthesis, etc.), which you must designate upon submission. The proposal should align with the programmatic objectives. (20)
comment in response to
post
The FAQ on the COA form is a little vague on the criteria to use, but it is generally accepted that, if there was no communication among a subset of co-authors on a particular paper, then it doesn't rise to the level of a collaboration to list. (Streamlined COA forms help program officers.) (19)
comment in response to
post
Also, NSF takes conflicts of interest seriously. That said, when you're filling out your COA form, listing every single co-author might not be necessary. When papers have many co-authors (e.g., genetics papers), not everyone rises to the level of a collaborator. (18)
www.nsf.gov/funding/seni...
comment in response to
post
Absolutely ditto, Karen. It'd be great if our paths were to cross again soon.
comment in response to
post
Oh, one more thing. This website is probably the best resource for NSF's response to the executive orders: www.nsf.gov/executive-or...
Please check there first before emailing the program officers (who have been coached to email you this link as a first response). (17)
comment in response to
post
There's hope in part because the people who remain at NSF are first-rate. The attrition is detrimental, but they'll find a way to maintain relatively high standards given the circumstances. To the extent that PIs and reviewers can help to streamline the process, everyone will benefit.
comment in response to
post
Thanks, Courtney. It's true that these are generally useful suggestions for interacting with NSF. Probably the most important thing to emphasize is the time crunch -- program officers will be frenetically multitasking and, therefore, timely responses from PIs and reviewers are needed more than ever.
comment in response to
post
The curtailed detail with BIO/DEB is tough. The Ecosystem Science program officers are both super sharp and amazingly kind and thoughtful. And the proposals in this cycle include some top-notch science.
comment in response to
post
Finally, have confidence that the program officers and staff members working in NSF’s directorates are among the most committed and thoughtful people that you could ever hope to meet, doing their absolute best to uphold the agency’s mission as long as the time allows. (16)
comment in response to
post
Perhaps now more than ever, cultivate curiosity in your students and reassure them that there are paths toward becoming a scientist in the future. Education and training remain a huge part of the NSF mission. (15)
comment in response to
post
Great ideas can come from anywhere, and congressional legislation (e.g., CHIPS and Science Act) has directed the NSF toward the goal of broadening participation in science. Researchers can organize and approach the legal counsel at their universities for clarifications on their activities. (14)
comment in response to
post
The operational costs at NSF are low -- less than 10% of the Congressional appropriations. Most appropriations are returned to universities in the United States, ultimately benefitting students in all regions while promoting an educated workforce. (13)
nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/Budget...
comment in response to
post
More generally, remind taxpayers why science matters. It is commonly noted that NIH awards end up having multiplicative benefits for the American economy. Comparable attempts to substantiate the value of NSF funding would be great to see. (12)
comment in response to
post
When emailing, it is part of the culture at NSF to cc anyone who might benefit from having a record of the correspondence. If you receive emails from NSF, use the “reply all” function when you submit your responses. In the face of further attrition, this could be a big time-saver. (11)
comment in response to
post
Be mindful that NSF employees have been alerted that more staffing reductions may be imminent. Program officers are actively planning for contingencies by integrating as much redundancy as possible into the review system (which is admittedly challenging when they’re already spread thin). (10)
comment in response to
post
If you are invited to submit a draft of an abstract, recognize that abstracts are written for public audiences (i.e., taxpayers), not your academic peers. Make it clear why this study is worth doing. Avoid jargon. Think big picture. Minimize potential for misinterpretations. (9)
comment in response to
post
If your proposal is recommended for an award, the turnaround time for documentation might be rapid. Cuing up an IRB protocol in advance could be worthwhile. Relatedly, if any principal investigators have current awards, submit your annual reports on time because overdue reports are hurdles. (8)
comment in response to
post
When you submit a proposal, include suggested reviewers. These are visible only to NSF staff and will be kept confidential. For a program officer who is learning quickly about a new scientific community, these suggestions are hugely valuable entry points into the realm of possibilities. (7)
comment in response to
post
If you are preparing to submit a proposal, please consult the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide: www.nsf.gov/policies/pappg Misconceptions about proposal requirements abound, but the policy office is very thorough in the PAPPG. Answers can often be found within. (6)
comment in response to
post
NSF is perpetually aiming to broaden its pool of evaluators across geographical regions and institutional types. If you must decline an invitation to join the review process, consider nominating like-minded colleagues or former students who can contribute similar expertise. (5)
comment in response to
post
Suggest alternatives. Owing to the attrition, it is possible that program officers will be covering new subject areas and learning about the respective scientific communities as they go. Almost invariably, they are broad-minded generalists who learn quickly, but with the timeline, please help. (4)
comment in response to
post
Accordingly, if you are invited to participate in the evaluation process, please reply as soon as you can. Even if initial responses hedge on the possibility of helping (“It’s probably 50-50 that I can do this. Let me check and I’ll update you in 3 days”), those are helpful updates for planning. (3)
comment in response to
post
Recognize that the evaluation timeline for the spring cycle has been greatly condensed. Panels were postponed and need to be rescheduled. To meet the timeline for funding in the fiscal year, recommendations from program officers are typically due by mid-July. The next few months will be intense. (2)
comment in response to
post
What expectations would the RA have in terms of the publications that result from the research?
comment in response to
post
It would be good for you, @trishvz.bsky.social, to name the third thing on the plate in that picture so that we know what it is.
comment in response to
post
The Oligopoloy paper is a good place to start:
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
@psmaldino.bsky.social and Thomas Morgan have a recent preprint as well.
comment in response to
post
"These biases stem from overgeneralising based on ... collecting unrepresentative samples, (e.g., urban, educated samples from Low to Middle Income Countries)."
This is a really important point. Rural communities seem to be routinely overlooked by cross-cultural psychologists.
comment in response to
post
That is, while it can often be worthwhile to consider local collaborators and co-authors, some sampled communities (e.g., Indigenous communities) might reasonably prefer to avoid working with in-country researchers. Discerning community preferences seems to be the place to start. #notonesizefitsall
comment in response to
post
"it is critical to ensure that researchers are not ‘parachuting’ into diverse regions solely for data collection, but that they are instead including local partners in low-resource settings as co-leaders and co-authors in these collaborations."
What works in one setting might be unwise elsewhere.
comment in response to
post
"Moreover, psychology would also benefit from closer contact and transfer of learning from cognate fields (e.g., Anthropology, Geography, Global Health)."
Partnering with anthropologists seems wise, and this paper provides an example to consider:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
comment in response to
post
Thanks for making Blue Sky a special place for scientists.
scholar.google.com/citations?us...