Literature DB >> 29531051

Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?

Daniele Fanelli1.   

Abstract

Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.

Keywords:  bias; crisis; integrity; misconduct; reproducible research

Year:  2018        PMID: 29531051      PMCID: PMC5856498          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  36 in total

1.  Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 2.  Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias.

Authors:  Hans-Hermann Dubben; Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-06-03

3.  An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature.

Authors:  Leah R Jager; Jeffrey T Leek
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 4.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials. A report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B.

Authors:  R B Weiss; N J Vogelzang; B A Peterson; L C Panasci; J T Carpenter; M Gavigan; K Sartell; E Frei; O R McIntyre
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-07-28       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The N-pact factor: evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power.

Authors:  R Chris Fraley; Simine Vazire
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology.

Authors:  Alexander Etz; Joachim Vandekerckhove
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature.

Authors:  Denes Szucs; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science.

Authors:  Megan L Head; Luke Holman; Rob Lanfear; Andrew T Kahn; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985-2013).

Authors:  Michèle B Nuijten; Chris H J Hartgerink; Marcel A L M van Assen; Sacha Epskamp; Jelte M Wicherts
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2016-12
View more
  55 in total

1.  Understanding the impact of preprocessing pipelines on neuroimaging cortical surface analyses.

Authors:  Nikhil Bhagwat; Amadou Barry; Erin W Dickie; Shawn T Brown; Gabriel A Devenyi; Koji Hatano; Elizabeth DuPre; Alain Dagher; Mallar Chakravarty; Celia M T Greenwood; Bratislav Misic; David N Kennedy; Jean-Baptiste Poline
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 6.524

2.  Changing times for science and the public: Science journalists' roles for the responsible communication of science.

Authors:  Suzana Liskauskas; Mariana D Ribeiro; Sonia Mr Vasconcelos
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Reproducibility - again.

Authors:  Ole H Petersen
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  "Reproducible" Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach.

Authors:  Santiago Schnell
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 1.758

5.  Where is the "where" in the brain? A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on spatial cognition.

Authors:  Giorgia Cona; Cristina Scarpazza
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  One hundred years ago: the dawning of the insulin era.

Authors:  Massimo Porta
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 4.280

7.  A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies.

Authors:  David B Allison; Richard M Shiffrin; Victoria Stodden
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Opinion: Reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry.

Authors:  A David Redish; Erich Kummerfeld; Rebecca Lea Morris; Alan C Love
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices.

Authors:  Aaron R Caldwell; Andrew D Vigotsky; Matthew S Tenan; Rémi Radel; David T Mellor; Andreas Kreutzer; Ian M Lahart; John P Mills; Matthieu P Boisgontier
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.