Prof Fiona Fidler | Collaborative assessment for trustworthy science: the repliCATS project @RIOTScienceClub
Prof Fiona Fidler | Collaborative assessment for trustworthy science: the repliCATS project  @RIOTScienceClub
Uploaded July 2020 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
About the speaker

Fiona has a degree in Psychology, with a second major in Sociology, and was awarded her PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne in 2006. She is now a Professor at the University of Melbourne, based between the School of BioSciences and the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. Fiona is also an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, leading a range of meta-research projects across ecology and conservation science, as well as projects in psychology, and other social science fields. Her meta-research work is driven by an underlying interest in how scientists and other experts reason, make and justify decisions, and change their minds. She is co-lead (with Simine Vazire) of MetaMelb, a recently launched meta-science/meta-research group at the University of Melbourne, and she leads the repliCATS project, for Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science.

About the talk

The repliCATS project evaluates published scientific research. As the acronym—Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science—suggests, repliCATS is a group activity, centred around assessing the trustworthiness of research claims. Reviewers first make private individual assessments about a research claim—judging its comprehensibility, the prior plausibility of underlying effect, and its likely replicability. Reviewers then share their judgements and reasoning with group members, providing both new information and the opportunity for feedback and calibration. The group interrogates differences in opinion and explores counterfactuals. After discussion, there is a final opportunity for privately updating individual judgements. Importantly the repliCATS process is not consensus-driven – reviewers can disagree, and their ratings and probability judgements are mathematically aggregated into a final assessment. At the moment, the repliCATS platform exists primarily to predict replicability. Launched in January 2019 as part of the DARPA SCORE program, over 18 months repliCATS elicited group assessments and captured associated reasoning and discussion, for 3,000 published social scientific research claims in 8 disciplines (Business, Criminology, Economics, Education, Political Science, Psychology, Public Administration, and Sociology). The repliCATS team are now working to extend the platform beyond merely predicting replicability, to deliver a more comprehensive peer review protocol. Suspected advantages of a repliCATS process over traditional peer review include: inbuilt training and calibration; feedback that is intrinsically rewarding; an inherently interactive process, but one which does not implicitly rely on ‘consensus by fatigue’; and a process that actively encourages interrogation. This talk will present some preliminary findings, and discuss the future of the platform.

About RIOT Science Club
The RIOT Science Club gives talks/workshops on Reproducible, Interpretable, Open & Transparent Science.

Slides and/or recordings of all past and future RIOTS Clubs are stored on our Open Science Framework Page: osf.io/8y7h2/. You can also subscribe to our mailing list, to receive regular information on upcoming talks and workshops, any local events and vacancies for positions in open and reproducible research.

You can also find us on Twitter @riotscienceclub.

If you would like to give a talk or workshop for The RIOTS Club, please email riotscienceclub@kcl.ac.uk.
Prof Fiona Fidler | Collaborative assessment for trustworthy science: the repliCATS projectQuarantined with...Chris ParsonsProf David Papineau | Fetishization of randomised controlled trialsA personal journey into open science | Dr Sjoerd BruijnOpen music research between art and science | Prof Alexander Refsum JenseniusThe Cost of Correcting Bad Science (FULL VIDEO)Big little lies: Simulating the destructive power of p-hacking - Angelika StefanJenny Mai Phan | Neurodiversity & Open Scholarship for Research & Higher EducationWe find it much easier to process and remember information we agree with Dorothy BishopDr Maddi Pownall - Open Science Through a Lens of Feminist PsychologyOur re-analysis showed that paroxetine in depression in childhood was neither effective nor safeDr Helena Paterson & Phil McCleer | Reflecting on our teaching with open science​
RIOT Science Club |

Prof Fiona Fidler | Collaborative assessment for trustworthy science: the repliCATS project

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER