Merge pull request #780 from bressler1995/open-science-101

M1 / L2  Quality and Diversity of Scholarly Communications.

Module_1/Lesson_2/readme.md

@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ In 2022 though, NASA decided to fund a challenge open to the public to develop n
 
 ### Quality and Diversity of Scholarly Communications
 
-Furthermore, open science improves the state of scientific literature. Scientific journals have traditionally faced the severe issue of publication bias, where journal articles overwhelmingly feature novel and positive results, according to a 2018 [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30523135/). This results in a state where scientific results in certain disciplines published scientific results may have a number of exaggerated effects, or even be “false positives” (wrongly claiming that an effect exists), making it difficult to evaluate the trustworthiness of published results, according to a 2011 and 2016 study. Open science practices, such as registered reports, mitigate publication bias and improve the trustworthiness of the scientific literature. Registered reports are journal publication formats that peer-review and accept articles before data collection is undertaken, eliminating the pressure to distort results, according to a 2022 [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01193-7). Other open science practices, such as pre-registration, also allows a partial look into projects that for various reasons (such as lack of funding, logistical issues or shifts in organizational priorities) have not been completed or disseminated, according to a 2023 [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396837/), giving these projects a publicly available output that can help inform about the current state research.
+Furthermore, open science improves the state of scientific literature. Scientific journals have traditionally faced the severe issue of publication bias, where journal articles overwhelmingly feature novel and positive results, according to a 2018 [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30523135/). This results in a state where scientific results in certain disciplines published may have a number of exaggerated effects, or even be "false positives" (wrongly claiming that an effect exists), making it difficult to evaluate the trustworthiness of published results, according to a 2011 and 2016 study. Open science practices, such as registered reports, mitigate publication bias and improve the trustworthiness of the scientific literature. Registered reports are journal publication formats that peer-review and accept articles before data collection is undertaken, eliminating the pressure to distort results, according to a 2022 [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01193-7). Other open science practices, such as pre-registration, also allows a partial look into projects that for various reasons (such as lack of funding, logistical issues or shifts in organizational priorities) have not been completed or disseminated, according to a 2023 [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396837/), giving these projects a publicly available output that can help inform about the current state research.
 
 <img src="../images/media/image254.png" style="width: 350px; height: auto;" />