Technology involving virtual reality could teach us a lot about the human psyche.
(U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Keith Holcomb)
Studies in psychology cannot be replicated in the same way as in other fields. But technology could change that.
Bad research techniques have called into question the results of many psychology studies. Fixing the problem starts with making sure students don't pick up bad habits.
Science itself needs to be put under the microscope and carefully scrutinised to deal with its flaws.
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.
Step one is not being afraid to reexamine a site that’s been previously excavated.
Dominic O'Brien. Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation
A team of archaeologists strived to improve the reproducibility of their results, influencing their choices in the field, in the lab and during data analysis.
Opening up data and materials helps with research transparency.
REDPIXEL.PL via Shutterstock.com
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.
When new discoveries are jealously guarded under lock and key, science suffers.
A century-old case of scientific fraud illustrates how hard it is to untangle the truth when access to new discoveries is limited.
Experiment design affects the quality of the results.
IAEA Seibersdorf Historical Images
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.
I just can’t seem to get my replication studies published.
Only 1% of published psychology research papers are ever repeated. If psychologists want their discipline to be taken seriously, they'll need to get their house in order.
Run a study again and again – should the results hit the same bull’s-eye every time?
The field of psychology is trying to absorb a recent big study that was able to replicate only 36 out of 100 major research papers. That finding is an issue, but maybe not for the reason you think.
What does it mean if the majority of what’s published in journals can’t be reproduced?
Researchers from around the globe tried to replicate 100 published psychology studies. They were successful on only 36.
Reading journals is not fun anymore.
In January, Haruko Obokata and colleagues published two papers in the journal Nature suggesting that a simple acid bath can convert differentiated cells back to a stem-cell-like state. This finding, if…
Are you as sure as the bankers?
Bankers aim to maximise profits. Scientists aim to understand reality. But Mike Peacey of the University of Bristol suggests…