publications

2022

1. open research

   The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a crisis Munafò, M., Chambers, C., Collins, A., Fortunato, L., and Macleod, M. BMC Research Notes 2022 journal abstract bib

   There are many factors that contribute to the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research. There is a need to understand the research ecosystem, and improvements will require combined efforts across all parts of this ecosystem. National structures can play an important role in coordinating these efforts, working collaboratively with researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations, and providing a monitoring and reporting function. Whilst many new ways of working and emerging innovations hold a great deal of promise, it will be important to invest in meta-research activity to ensure that these approaches are evidence based, work as intended, and do not have unintended consequences. Addressing reproducibility will require working collaboratively across the research ecosystem to share best practice and to make the most effective use of resources. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) brings together Local Networks of researchers, Institutions, and External Stakeholders (funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations), to coordinate action on reproducibility and work to ensure the UK retains its place as a centre for world-leading research. This activity is coordinated by the UKRN Steering Group. We consider this structure as valuable, bringing together a range of voices at a range of levels to support the combined efforts required to enact change.

   @article{Munafo-et-al_2022,
     doi = {10.1186/s13104-022-05942-3},
     author = {Munaf{\`o}, Marcus R and Chambers, Christopher D and Collins, Alexandra M and Fortunato, Laura and Macleod, Malcolm R},
     journal = {BMC Research Notes},
     title = {The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a
                       crisis},
     year = {2022},
     volume = {15},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001461},
     abbr = {open research},
     number = {43}
   }
   

2. ethnography

   Group dynamics in the contrada communities of Siena, Italy Kenny, A., and Fortunato, L. SocArXiv 2022 preprint abstract bib

   The contrade are 17 communities that divide the historic city centre of Siena, Italy, and they hold great potential to shed light on human group dynamics. Here we provide a systematic description of these communities, drawing on published materials and on a series of field-based studies, combined with a workflow grounded in open research practices. We estimate that the contemporary contrada system involves on the order of 30,000 individuals. Our survey (n = 508) indicates that membership is linked to strong familial and other social ties. Assessment of the attitude of members (n = 42) reveals variation shaped by the relationships between the groups (as alliance, neutral, or rivalry). This pattern is reflected in how members behave, collectively and individually, in the course of a ritual event (185 person-hours of GPS data). In this contemporary urban setting, then, social interactions within and across group boundaries are shaped by symbolic divisions rooted in history.

   @article{Kenny-Fortunato_giro,
     title = {Group dynamics in the \emph{contrada} communities of
                       Siena, Italy},
     author = {Kenny, Adam R and Fortunato, Laura},
     year = {2022},
     journal = {SocArXiv},
     preprint = {10.31235/osf.io/hxyvc},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hxyvc},
     abbr = {ethnography},
     note = {version 3}
   }
   

2021

1. open research

   From grassroots to global: a blueprint for building a reproducibility network UK Reproducibility Network Steering Committee, . PLoS Biology 2021 journal abstract bib

   Researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers are considering how to improve research culture and quality, but no single part of the research ecosystem can effect change on its own. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) was established to facilitate the necessary coordination. Its experience can inform the establishment of like-minded networks around the world to drive positive change.

   @article{UKRN_2021,
     doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.3001461},
     author = {{UK Reproducibility Network Steering Committee}},
     journal = {PLoS Biology},
     publisher = {Public Library of Science},
     title = {From grassroots to global: a blueprint for building a reproducibility network},
     year = {2021},
     month = nov,
     volume = {19},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001461},
     pages = {1--6},
     abbr = {open research},
     number = {11}
   }
   

2. open research

   The importance of open research practices to empirical research in the evolutionary social sciences Kenny, A. Evolution and Human Behaviour 2021 journal preprint abstract bib

   Open research practices should be a staple of evolutionary studies of the human experience. I focus on three open research practices — data archiving, code sharing, and open materials. I reiterate their benefits for comparative cross-cultural research in the evolutionary social sciences. I also highlight some of the challenges researchers might face in their implementation, and provide pointers to possible solutions. Finally, I list elements of open research that merit greater discussion in this area of research.

   @article{Kenny_2021,
     author = {Kenny, Adam Robert},
     title = {The importance of open research practices to empirical
                       research in the evolutionary social sciences},
     year = {2021},
     date = {2021-04-16},
     volume = {42},
     issue = {3},
     pages = {268--270},
     journal = {Evolution and Human Behaviour},
     doi = {10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.02.008},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.02.008},
     preprint = {10.31235/osf.io/2y3st},
     abbr = {open research}
   }
   

3. open research

   The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship Fortunato, L., and Galassi, M. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 2021 journal preprint abstract bib

   Free and open source software (FOSS) is any computer program distributed under a licence that grants the user rights to run the program for any purpose, to study it, to modify it, and to redistribute it either in its original form or modified. We explore the close ties between FOSS and academia, and in particular the intersection with computational reproducibility. We begin by situating FOSS in relation to other open initiatives in academic settings — namely open science, open research, and open scholarship. In this context, we argue that anyone who actively contributes to the research process today is a computational researcher, in that they use computers to manage and store information. We then provide a primer to FOSS suitable for researchers in any field, and anyone in the academic community concerned with the quality of research and its sustainability. Next, we illustrate how the notions introduced in the primer apply to resources for scientific computing, using the GNU Scientific Library as a case study. We conclude by discussing why the common interpretation of “open source” as “open code” is misplaced, and we use this example to further articulate the case for free and open source software in research and scholarship.

   @article{Fortunato-Galassi_2021,
     author = {Fortunato, Laura and Galassi, Mark},
     title = {The case for free and open source software in
                       research and scholarship},
     year = {2021},
     date = {2021-03-29},
     journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A},
     volume = {379},
     pages = {20200079},
     doi = {10.1098/rsta.2020.0079},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0079},
     preprint = {10.31235/osf.io/ye7sx},
     abbr = {open research}
   }
   

4. open research

   Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology O’Dea, R., Parker, T., Chee, Y., Culina, A., Drobniak, S., Duncan, D., Fidler, F., Gould, E., Ihle, M., Kelly, C., Lagisz, M., Roche, D., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Wilkinson, D., Wintle, B., and Nakagawa, S. BMC Biology 2021 journal abstract bib

   Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.

   @article{O'Dea-et-al_2021,
     title = {Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and
                       evolutionary biology},
     author = {O’Dea, Rose E and Parker, Timothy H and Chee, Yung En and Culina, Antica and Drobniak, Szymon M and Duncan, David H and Fidler, Fiona and Gould, Elliot and Ihle, Malika and Kelly, Clint D and Lagisz, Malgorzata and Roche, Dominique G. and S\'{a}nchez-T\'{o}jar, Alfredo and Wilkinson, David P. and Wintle, Bonnie C. and Nakagawa, Shinichi},
     journal = {BMC Biology},
     date = {2021-03-09},
     volume = {19},
     number = {1},
     pages = {1--5},
     year = {2021},
     doi = {10.1186/s12915-021-01006-3},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-01006-3},
     abbr = {open research}
   }
   

2020

1. cooperation

   In-group bias in human cooperation: insights from the contrade of Siena, Italy Kenny, A. Doctoral thesis, University of Oxford 2020 abstract bib

   Cooperation in humans shows an in-group bias, with individuals more likely to benefit members of their own in-group than members of other out-groups. This thesis explores the effects of inter-group competition, group relationship, and shared identity on in-group bias, by conducting field experiments among communities in a historic Italian city, namely the contrade of Siena. In Chapter 1, I review the literature on the evolution of cooperation and in-group bias. I then describe how field experiments that employ economic games can help elucidate in-group bias in the real world, before outlining how I conducted field experiments with the contrade. I describe the contrade in greater detail in Chapter 2, using research from my fieldwork among these communities to demonstrate the importance of group relationship in the Sienese context. In experiment 1 (Chapter 3), I compare in-group and out-group cooperation during a period characterised by low competition vs. high competition. There is no evidence for an effect of competition. However, there is a significant effect of group relationship, with more cooperation among neutral out-groups compared to rival out-groups. In experiment 2 (Chapter 4), I analyse third-party punishment decisions and participants’ interpretations of the experiment, to assess whether cooperation within and between contrade is supported by social norms. There is limited support for third-party punishment sustaining norms governing either in-group or out-group behaviour. In experiment 3 (Chapter 5), I explore the effect of shared identity on in-group bias, by seeing if a “common enemy” encourages out-group cooperation. The common enemy neither increases the perceptions of shared identity nor decreases in-group bias. I conclude with a meta-analysis in Chapter 6, which reveals an overall strong in-group bias among the contrade. The bias is influenced by the relationship between the groups, but is unaffected by the level of competition and attempts to induce a shared identity. This thesis shows that group identities in the real world have a significant impact on social behaviour.

   @phdthesis{Kenny_thesis,
     author = {Kenny, Adam Robert},
     title = {In-group bias in human cooperation: insights from
                       the \emph{contrade} of {S}iena, {I}taly},
     school = {University of Oxford},
     year = {2020},
     abbr = {cooperation}
   }
   

2. open research

   Research culture and reproducibility Munafò, M., Chambers, C., Collins, A., Fortunato, L., and Macleod, M. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020 journal abstract bib

   There is ongoing debate regarding the robustness and credibility of published scientific research. We argue that these issues stem from two broad causal mechanisms: the cognitive biases of researchers and the incentive structures within which researchers operate. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) is working with researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, and other stakeholders to address these issues.

   @article{Munafo-et-al_2020,
     title = {Research culture and reproducibility},
     author = {Munaf{\`o}, Marcus R and Chambers, Christopher D and Collins, Alexandra M and Fortunato, Laura and Macleod, Malcolm R},
     journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
     volume = {24},
     number = {2},
     pages = {91--93},
     year = {2020},
     date = {2020-02-01},
     doi = {10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.002},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.002},
     abbr = {open research},
     publisher = {Elsevier}
   }
   

2019

1. kinship

   Lineal kinship organization in cross-specific perspective Fortunato, L. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2019 journal abstract bib

   I draw on insights from anthropology to outline a framework for the study of kinship systems that applies across animal species with biparental sexual reproduction. In particular, I define lineal kinship organization as a social system that emphasizes interactions among lineally related kin — that is, individuals related through females only, if the emphasis is towards matrilineal kin, and individuals related through males only, if the emphasis is towards patrilineal kin. In a given population, the emphasis may be expressed in one or more social domains, corresponding to pathways for the transmission of different resources across generations (e.g. the allocation of food, the transfer of access to the natal territory or household). A lineal bias in any domain can be viewed as a bias in investment towards a particular set of kin — specifically, towards the offspring of daughters if the bias is matrilineal, and towards the offspring of sons if the bias is patrilineal. Effectively, investment is restricted to the offspring of the females in the population in one case, and to the offspring of the males in the other. This is distinct from a bias in investment towards daughters and towards sons, respectively. Overall, I propose a shift in focus—from viewing matrilineal and patrilineal kinship as unitary phenomena, to consideration of the different aspects of the social system featuring a bias towards lineally related kin.

   @article{Fortunato_2019,
     author = {Fortunato, Laura},
     title = {Lineal kinship organization in cross-specific perspective},
     journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
                       Biological Sciences},
     volume = {374},
     number = {1780},
     pages = {20190005},
     year = {2019},
     doi = {10.1098/rstb.2019.0005},
     url = {https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0005},
     abbr = {kinship}
   }