Articles sur Reproducibility

Affichage de 1 à 20 de 21 articles

Wansink’s research showed plate size matters when it comes to how much we eat. rawpixel/Unsplash

Retraction of a journal article doesn’t make its findings false

The journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently retracted several papers by a leading researcher on food and consumption. What does this mean for the researcher's findings?
Academic journals rely on peer review to support editors in making decisions about what to publish. from www.shutterstock.com

When to trust (and not to trust) peer reviewed science

There's peer review – and then there's peer review. With more knowledge you can dive in a little deeper and make a call about how reliable a science paper really is.
It may take time for a tiny step forward to show its worth. ellissharp/Shutterstock.com

Novelty in science – real necessity or distracting obsession?

Scientists are rewarded with funding and publications when they come up with innovative findings. But in the midst of a 'reproducibility crisis,' being new isn't the only thing to value about research.
Science itself needs to be put under the microscope and carefully scrutinised to deal with its flaws. Nattapat Jitrungruengnij/Shutterstock

Science’s credibility crisis: why it will get worse before it can get better

We are observing two new phenomena. On one hand doubt is shed on the quality of entire scientific fields or sub-fields. On the other this doubt is played out in the open, in the media and blogosphere.
Opening up data and materials helps with research transparency. REDPIXEL.PL via Shutterstock.com

Research transparency: 5 questions about open science answered

Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.
Experiment design affects the quality of the results. IAEA Seibersdorf Historical Images

Why isn’t science better? Look at career incentives

Embracing more rigorous scientific methods would mean getting science right more often than we currently do. But the way we value and reward scientists makes this a challenge.
Good science loses out when bad science gets the funding. Shutterstock/Looker Studio

We need to talk about the bad science being funded

New studies on the quality of published research shows we could be wasting billions of dollars a year on bad science, to the neglect of good science projects.
Computer… or black box for data? US Army

How computers broke science – and what we can do to fix it

Virtually every researcher relies on computers to collect or analyze data. But when computers are opaque black boxes that manipulate data, it's impossible to replicate studies – a core value for science.
Scientists are often untrained in methods to make their research replicable. Pulpolux !!!

Science is in a reproducibility crisis – how do we resolve it?

Over the past few years, there has been a growing awareness that many experimentally established “facts” don’t seem to hold up to repeated investigation. This was highlighted in a 2010 article in the New…

Les contributeurs les plus fréquents

Plus