Our brain is plastic CuttingEEG too!
This year CuttingEEG starts a new framework for poster submission to open new perspectives for participants and encourage open-science. Note: poster boards are portrait oriented (137x90cm).
Depending on the progression stage of your work you can choose to register your abstract in one of three categories:
PLANNED STUDIES (i)
At the time of submission your study is planned (protocol, projected analyses…) and you may refine it for the conference but not yet implement it.
COLLECTED DATA (ii)
At the time of submission the data has been collected and you may partially/fully analyze the data by the time of the conference.
ANALYZED DATA (iii)
At the time of the submission the data are partially/fully analyzed and will be fully analyzed at the time of the conference.
Click on one of the question above for more information
Why having different poster categories? (in practice)
There are two main reasons why scientists may present a poster at a conference:
- One is to showcase their most recent findings faster, before (or meanwhile) going through the process of publication in a peer reviewed journal (which is sometimes a long process).
- The other, and perhaps the most common, is to get feedback from the community, and receive informal advice from other experts working in closely related areas while still working on the data.
Yet, most submission guidelines for neuroscience conferences require only finalized works to be presented. Hence the instructions of the 2020 annual meeting of the Organisation of Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) state: “the abstract should describe only work (experiments and analysis) that has already been completed, not work that is planned for the interval between abstract submission and the conference” (2020 Annual meeting of OHBM, alike in the previous years and as mentionned by Tibon et al. 2018). These guidelines favor promoting already finalized, almost ready-to-publish results, and may not allow constructive feedback when it is most needed, that is when planning, and performing a study.
Elaborating on the suggestion of Tibon et al. 2018, (see also her amazing talk on PreReg posters at LiveMEEG2020) this year CuttingEEG offers three types of poster submissions: Planned study, Collected data, and Analyzed data.
If you are interested to know how the different abstract types contribute differently to progress in research see here
Pragmatically, by distinguishing openly prediction from postdiction, this approach favors good practices and science credibility. That is, investigation that is planned before observing the data to test a hypothesis (data-independent analysis); from investigation that is carried out to explore an existing dataset in order to generate new questions (data-contingent analysis). Such central distinction helps to avoid common cognitive biases in human reasoning such as post-hoc theorizing (Kerr et al. 1998) or circular reasoning (Kriegeskorte et al. 2009).
Which type of poster submission is the right one for me?
Scenario 1: We have a plan!
You and your team are planning to test a new hypothesis based on your model/theory. This is the ideal case for submitting a Planned study (i). Upon submission, or after receiving expert feed-backs at CuttingEEG, you can decide to preregister your abstract for instance at OSF or in a journal as preregistered publication (then your planned study will be assigned a permanent identifier (doi) that will be citable).
Scenario 2: Cross-validation with open data
You are planning to use a dataset available in open access. While the data are already acquired, this situation is still suitable for a Planned study (i). You can apply a cross validation approach where the data is blindly split in two parts. While one part is used for exploratory analysis to develop the model(s) and the prediction(s); the other part is sealed until exploration is complete (data holdout). In this scenario, the preregistration is based on the outcomes of the exploratory phase, and the sealed part of the data is next unsealed to test the hypothesis as defined in the preregistration. As long as the two parts of the data are kept independent, this procedure permits to follow a full circle: from postdiction to prediction.
Scenario 3: The experiment is running
You already defined your study’ hypothesis, the experimental design and you eventually started piloting. Or, you already began the recording and you have been conducting some analysis. This is an ideal case for submitting Collected data (ii). During the period between the registration and the conference you will have the opportunity to update your abstract such that it really reflects the stage of your work. Once at the conference, the CuttingEEG community will have access to an up-to-date abstract and will be able to provide you with thoughtful feed-back.
Scenario 4: Digging an old dataset further
You are planning to further analyze a dataset which already led to publication(s) from your lab or from collaborators. For instance, you would like to explore some aspect(s) of the data that were not considered in the original prediction plan, and/or you would like to apply new methods of analysis. This is a great opportunity to submit a Collected data (ii). By updating you registered submission you will ensure that at the time of the conference the CuttingEEG community will be the most helpful for you.
Scenario 5: Almost there but I need advice
You conducted a study and the analysis stage is almost complete. You are willing to receive general feed-back on your study. Your work fits perfectly with an Analyzed data (iii). At the time of the registration you will provide the results you got so far, and you will be able to complete them before the conference.
Scenario 6: Exciting new results about to get published
Your study is achieved and you are finalizing a manuscript. By the time of the conference you are hoping to have your work under review or even accepted for publication. This is a typical scenario for registering an Analyzed data (iii). It will be a great opportunity to present and disseminate your research to the community.
Further reading on the new science framework
- The British Neuroscience provided one of the first opportunity to submit preregsitration abstract
- Nosek et al., PNAS, 2018 ; The preregistration revolution
- Tibon, TICS, 2018 ; Title TBA: Revising the Abstract Submission Process
- Brouwers, bioRxiv ; Turn of Events: Academic events as a platform for preregistration
- Kerr, Personality and Social Psychology Review,1998 ; HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known
- Kriegeskorte, Nature Neuroscience,2009 ; Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping