Home
Todd Suomela's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"If you’re a psychologist, the news has to make you a little nervous–particularly if you’re a psychologist who published an article in 2008 in any of these three journals: Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, or the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Because, if you did, someone is going to check your work. A group of researchers have already begun what they’ve dubbed the Reproducibility Project, which aims to replicate every study from those three journals for that one year. "
"OSF is an open collaboration of scientists to increase the alignment between scientific values and scientific practices. Efforts include development of tools and infrastructure, and conducting research about scientific practices. Infrastructure and tool projects include tools to improve and document scientific workflow and defining Replication Value of existing findings. Research projects include the Reproducibility Project evaluating the replicability of published psychological science, and a survey of opinions about disclosure standards in scientific reportin"
"Reproducibility is supposedly a basic tenet of science, but a number of fields have raised concerns that modern publishing pressures inhibit replication of experiments. In a well-known 2005 PLoS Medicine essay, epidemiologist John Ioannidis, now at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, argued that in biomedicine, many if not most published research claims are false. He outlined a number of factors—including small sample sizes, small effect sizes, and “flexibility” in the research process—that contribute to a high rate of false positives. One reason those false positives aren't caught is because of a lack of emphasis on replication studies, which is “standard across fields of science,” says Columbia University statistician Victoria Stodden, who studies reproducibility and openness in computational science. "
-
They go on to argue that this hyper-competitive system does not, in fact, produce the best possible science because scientists choose projects based on their likelihood of increasing their payoffs within these narrow domains (more grant dollars, more high profile publications, etc.), rather than on their likelihood to produce genuine scientific progress. In short, scientific progress only sometimes aligns with ambition, politics or funding priorities, but behavior almost always well, eventually.
-
Continuing the above theme, Carpenter writes about particular issues within Psychology. The problem is known as the "file-drawer problem" in which negative results tend not to be published. Combine that with noisy results from small sample sized experiments and you have a tendency for statistical flukes to be published in high profile journals as if they were facts.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
"Replication—The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard. New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research. The five Perspectives in this section (and associated News and Careers stories, Readers' Poll, and Editorial) explore some of the issues associated with replicating results across various fields. "
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in repetition
-
Speaking
There are some web pages abo...
Items: 5 | Visits: 5
Created by: Isabel Rodríguez
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo