Send us a link
Analysis suggesting that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.
More than just an academic problem: on the repercussions of scienctific misconduct on the careers of honest and hard-working scientists.
For science to progress, we have to accept the inevitability of error.
There have been two distinct responses to the replication crisis – by instituting measures like registered reports and by making data openly available. But another group continues to remain in denial.
The goal is to customize treatments for cancer and other diseases to a patient's own biology. But something as simple as failing to take care of tissue samples en route to the lab can derail that.
This advice is both hyperbolic and not nearly as crazy as it sounds.
Leonard Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute, discusses the causes of irreproducible science and his latest effort to spread best practices.
A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct.
A researcher specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder is facing jail time for allegedly embezzling tens of thousands of dollars of federal grant money.
Creating a culture of replication takes prizes, grants and magnanimity — as well as publications.
Science could benefit from more reporting of null findings, even if the reports were briefer and had less detail than would be needed for peer review.
It sounds almost absurd, but that could be one factor behind the so-called “reproducibility crisis”.
Psychologists are pessimistic about the state of their field but want to improve, a survey shows. But are new measures working?
A "completely confusing statement" in a gazette notification has scientists wondering which of their papers will and won't be considered towards their promotions in the future.
The philosophy behind the Registered Report format is that the intrinsic value of science is in the rigor of the method, not the appeal of the results.
When a scientific paper is retracted, it can produce long-term aftershocks.
Bad research just doesn’t affect the people in the area around it, the people who might spend years trying to take a dodgy result and extend it.
More than 26 percent of papers identified as systematic reviews or meta-analyses contained spin. This figure rose to up to 84 percent in papers reporting on nonrandomised trials.
Study finds faulty research creates a significant drop in use of prior published work.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
