Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
The Psychological Science Accelerator is a global network of more than 500 labs in more than 70 countries which aims to re-do older psychology experiments, but on a mass-scale in several different settings. The effort is one of many targeting a problem that has plagued the discipline for years: the inability of psychologists to get consistent results across similar experiments.
This Tuesday at 9 a.m., the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will be hosting a national symposium in response to the 200-page report: Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. The symposium will feature discussions on actions taken or contemplated in response to the report’s findings. Learn more or find out how to watch live.
The ‘replication crisis’ certainly is uncomfortable for many scientists whose work gets undercut, and the rate of failures may currently be unacceptably high. But psychologist and statistician Eric Loken argues that confronting the replication crisis is good for science as a whole.
The U.S. military’s innovation incubator, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has signed the Center for Open Science to create a research claims database as DARPA’s first step to assign a ‘credibility score’ to social and behavioral science research.
A report from the National Association of Scholars takes on the reproducibility crisis in science. Not everyone views the group’s motives as pure.
Replication and reproducibility have been big issues in medicine and psychology and economics, but les talked about in fields like archaeology. Here, Ben Marwick and Zenobia Jacobs discuss their latest paper’s reproducibility strategy and its tactics during fieldwork, labwork and data analysis.