Code of Conduct
General
[needs review]
All members of the lab, along with visitors, are expected to agree with the following code of conduct. We will enforce this code as needed. We expect cooperation from all members to help ensuring a safe environment for everybody. Please also see the University of Central Florida Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Interpersonal Violence Policy.
The Quick Version
The lab is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion (or lack thereof). We do not tolerate harassment of lab members in any form. Sexual language and imagery is generally not appropriate for any lab venue, including lab meetings, presentations, or discussions.
The Less Quick Version
Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.
Members asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.
If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact Nichole Lighthall immediately. If Nichole is the cause of your concern, then please reach out to the department chair or another trusted departmental member who can assist.
We expect members to follow these guidelines at any lab-related event.
This section was adapted from: code of conduct. Original source and credit: JSConf & The Ada Initiative. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Scientific integrity
[needs review]
Reproducible research
Reproducible research is research that can be exactly reproduced. This is related to replicability, in that it has to do with your ability to get the same results again, but it refers specifically to getting the same results given the same set of data. I expect that all of our research will be, at minimum, reproducible (I hope that it will also be replicable).
Conducting reproducible research is more difficult than it sounds, because it requires that you are organized and possess sufficient foresight to document each step of your research process. There are two main things you can do to improve the reproducibility of your research: 1) extensive note-taking (i.e., as much as you can manage) and 2) programming workflows with version control.
Programming workflows help with reproducibility because they take some of the human element out, and in an ideal scenario, you are left with a script or series of scripts that takes data from raw form to final product. Programming alone is not enough, though, because people can easily forget which script changes they made and when. Therefore, all projects that involve programming of any kind (so basically, all projects) must use some form of version control. I strongly recommend git in combination with GitHub (see below), unless you have a pre-existing workflow. This is a hard requirement because a) it is the only way to definitively track the evolution of methods/files over time, b) it allows for easier detection of bugs, c) it facilitates code sharing, and d) it has nice side effects for workflow organization (e.g., thinking in terms of commits, branches, issues). Points a, b, and c are directly relevant to the mission of conducting reproducible research.
Experiment pre-analysis plans
We are currently working out a system for publishing pre-analysis plans for our studies. Stay tuned.
Authorship
We will follow APA guidelines with respect to authorship:
“Authorship credit should reflect the individual’s contribution to the study. An author is considered anyone involved with initial research design, data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval. However, the following do not necessarily qualify for authorship: providing funding or resources, mentorship, or contributing research but not helping with the publication itself. The primary author assumes responsibility for the publication, making sure that the data are accurate, that all deserving authors have been credited, that all authors have given their approval to the final draft; and handles responses to inquiries after the manuscript is published.”
Authorship will be discussed prior to the beginning of a new project, so that expectations are clearly defined. However, changes to authorship may occur over the course of a project if a new person becomes involved or if someone is not fulfilling their planned role. In general, I expect that graduate students and postdocs will be first authors on publications on which they are the primary lead, and I will be the last author.
Old projects
For projects that required significant lab resources (e.g., fMRI or EEG studies or any other study requiring a great deal of time, money, or lab effort): Project “ownership” expires 3 years after data collection has ended (or whenever the original primary lead relinquishes their rights to the study, whichever comes first). At that point, I reserve the right to re-assign the project (or not) as needed to expedite publication. This policy is intended to avoid situations in which a dataset languishes for a long period of time, while still giving publication priority to the original primary lead.
Human subjects research
[under construction]
Because we are engaged in human subjects research, it is of the utmost importance that we adhere to our approved IRB protocols. All lab members must read and comply with the IRB consent form and protocol for any project that they are working on. Lab members must also complete the CITI training and be added to the research personnel list before they can work with human subjects. If there are any questions about the protocols, or if you’re not sure whether we have IRB approval to run your study, please ask the lab managers for clarification. If necessary, the lab managers can file an amendment to an existing protocol or create a new protocol.
If you encounter any problems in the course of doing research that results in a negative outcome for the participant (e.g., if a participant becomes ill or upset, if there is an accident with the equipment, if there is a breach of confidentiality, etc), you should immediately seek assistance from the lab managers, the PhD student in charge of the project, if applicable, and/or Dr. Lighthall, in that order of priority. If none of those people are around, you must notify them within 24 hours, preferably as soon as possible. In some cases, we may need to report this information to the IRB and/or our funding agencies.