Psychology Is in Crisis Over Whether It’s in Crisis
The psychology establishment is fighting back against an attack on its reliability. But it might be letting emotion get in the way.
Send us a link
Enhancing Research Reproducibility
Recommendations from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
A tragedy of errors
Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix.
Let's just try that again
Reproducibility should be at science’s heart. It isn’t. But that may soon change.
If you fail to reproduce another scientist's results, this journal wants to know
If you fail to reproduce another scientist's results, this journal wants to know
The biotech company Amgen Inc. and prominent biochemist Bruce Alberts have created a new online journal that aims to lift the curtain on often hidden results in biomedicine: failed efforts to confirm other groups' published papers.
Unexpected, a video by the Royal Society
Fellow of the Royal Society and future President of the Royal Statistical Society, Sir David Spiegelhalter visits Dr Nicole Janz to discuss reproducibility in scientific publications.
Cashing in on transparency in science
$1000 to each of the first 1000 scientists preregistering their protocols with Nosek's Center for Open Science.
Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature
Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature
Replication studies are rare and only a few had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis.
Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly
Ask not what you can do for reproducibility; ask what reproducibility can do for you.
METRICS Con 2015 presentations
Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford conference 2015 presentations on data transparency, open science, and reproducibility.
rOpenSci announces $2.9M award from the Helmsley Charitable Trust
rOpenSci, whose mission is to develop and maintain sustainable software tools that allow researchers to access, visualize, document, and publish open data on the Web, has been awarded a grant of nearly $2.9 million over 3 years from The Helmsley Charitable Trust.
Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research
Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research
Though there are currently no mechanisms in place to quickly identify findings that are unlikely to replicate, this paper shows that prediction markets are well suited to bridge this gap.
How to tell good studies from bad? Bet on them
Nosek et al. found that compared to simply asking experts to predict the likelihood that studies will be reproduced, asking them to bet money on the outcomes improved the accuracy of the guesses.
Are we finally getting serious about fixing science?
Biomedical research has faced criticism for being unreliable, but a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences might change all that.
When things go wrong
Publishers should apply consistent policies to correcting the published literature and adopt versioning. The scientific community ought to encourage corrections.
Scientists can draw very different meanings from the same data, study shows
Giving the same information to multiple scientific teams can lead to very different conclusions, a report published today in Nature shows.
Biomedical researchers lax in checking for imposter cell lines
Many scientists still not bothering to address an issue that undermines the reproducibility of research findings.
Most research spending is wasted on bad studies. These billionaires want to change that.
Most research spending is wasted on bad studies. These billionaires want to change that.
Laura and John Arnold, a Houston couple, have become the Medicis for "research integrity". They finance the Center of Open Science (COS) and the METRICS Institute led by J.P. Ioannidis at Stanford.
How scientists fool themselves and how they can stop
Humans are remarkably good at self-deception. But growing concern about reproducibility is driving many researchers to seek ways to fight their own worst instincts.
The ReScience Journal
ReScience is a peer-reviewed journal that targets computational research and encourages the explicit replication of already published research, promoting new and open-source implementations in order to ensure that the original research is reproducible.
Institutions must do their part for reproducibility
Tie funding to verified good institutional practice, and robust science will shoot up the agenda.
Psychology Is Not in Crisis
Failure to replicate is not a bug; it is a feature. It is what leads us along the path of scientific discovery.
What science can tell us about bad science
What recent research says about fraud, errors, and other dismaying academic problems.
Science isn't broken
"If we’re going to rely on science as a means for reaching the truth — and it’s still the best tool we have — it’s important that we understand and respect just how difficult it is to get a rigorous result."
Half of biomedical research studies don't stand up to scrutiny and what we need to do about that
Half of biomedical research studies don't stand up to scrutiny and what we need to do about that
What if I told you that half of the studies published in scientific journals today - the ones upon which news coverage of medical advances is often based - won't hold up under scrutiny?
Could students solve the irreproducibility crisis?
Scientists on social media debate a call to require PhD students to replicate research before they can graduate.
Experimental reproducibility has always been hard but cooperation could make it easier
Experimental reproducibility has always been hard but cooperation could make it easier
Is public money being thrown away on scientific research whose results won’t hold up to scrutiny?
ACSB Reproducibility Report
The difficulty in replicating research findings has been at the center of the attention in the specialized and lay press for a number of years and is more recently attracting the attention of the Administration and Congress.
It's good to talk
Survey results released last week by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) included an interesting nugget. Some 72% of respondents said that they had been unable to replicate a published experimental result. Yet a higher proportion (77%) said that they had never been told that their work could not be replicated.
Collaborate and listen to reproduce research
Better communication between labs may resolve many reproducibility problems, according to [28]report.
×