Kai Zhang, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Science is in a reproducibility crisis. This is driven in part by invalid statistical analyses that happen long after the data are collected – the opposite of how things are traditionally done.
Evangeline Rose, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Kevin Omland, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Thomas Mathew, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
A new statistical test lets researchers search for similarities between groups. Could this help keep new important findings out of the file drawer?
Since 2012, more than 120 of Britain’s universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical companies have signed a public pledge committing them to greater openness in their animal research programs.
Once associated with mind-control experiments and counter-cultural defiance, psychedelics now show great promise for mental health treatments and may prompt a re-evaluation of the scientific method.
Machine learning is changing the world in ways that we are just beginning to appreciate. But could it change the way we do science and the reasons why we do 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.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
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.
Scientists typically stay out of public policy debates, but an academic makes the case that they need to push back against politicians who distort research.
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.
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.
Professor of Management & Organizations; Professor of Environment & Sustainability; Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the Ross School of Business and School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan