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.
Researchers need to be able to draw conclusions based on previously published studies in their field. A new aggregation method synthesizes prior findings and may help reveal more of the big picture.
This is the second part in a series on how we edit science, looking at hypothesis testing, the problem of p-hacking and how the peer review process works.
This is the first part in a series on how we edit science, looking at what science is and how it works.
Tools like Amazon's Mechanical Turk allow psychology researchers to recruit test subjects from around the world. But the system can also be exploited.
In science, the word 'theory' has a very specific meaning that's easy for nonscientists to misunderstand or misconstrue. Here's what a theory must withstand to be accepted by the scientific community.
The case for neoclassicism in science.
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.
There's a big difference between science and pseudoscience. But if people don't understand how science works in the first place, it's very easy for them to fall for the pseudoscience.
Large-scale natural experiments such as oil spills, tsunamis and climate change are things you wouldn't want to do on purpose. But that doesn't mean they're not scientifically useful experiments too.
How flawed citation practices can perpetuate scientific ideas even before they've been fully established as true.
It's easy to attribute the wrong cause to a mysterious phenomenon. But science has some tools to help you avoid these attribution errors.
Science explains how people are changing our natural systems, but we need to recognize the importance – and power – of emotions and the spiritual world in charting a course to the future.
Diverse threads of the vast interrogation of nature we call science are coming together in a rich and mutually informative intellectual tapestry.
Scientists build on knowledge gained and published by others. How can we know which findings to trust?
Relying on computer modelling can be dangerous: in 1999 NASA lost a space probe because of a silly error in the control software.
Where once scientists used to be solitary creatures, today science is a highly collaborative affair, and the latest research in ecology is no exception.
Scientists being wrong is not a bug or a glitch – it's a feature of science and mistakes can actually lead to new, deeper discoveries.
Everyone loves a study that turns one of our favourite vices into a health benefit. Before you reach for a Mars bar or a Dairy Milk, let's take a step back.
Peer review is not infallible, but it's central to how science works. In this extract from Peter Doherty's new book, The Knowledge Wars, he explains how it works in practice.