A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
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.
Some scholars claim that replication, in the humanities, is not possible. The reasoning is that the humanities search for cultural meaning that can yield multiple valid answers since research objects are people and interactive entities. This may be true but it does not automatically follow that replication is not possible. Its a desirable feature for studies in the humanities to be replicable.
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.
A survey by Nature found that 52 percent of researchers believed there was a ‘significant reproducibility crisis’ and 38 percent said there was a ‘slight crisis.’ Here, three experts give their views on the issue.
A small but vocal contingent of researchers has maintained that many, perhaps most, published studies are wrong. But how bad is this problem, exactly? And what features make a study more or less likely to turn out to be true? A team of 270 researchers asked the question of published psychology studies.
After Big Data, one of the most controversial topics in statistics workshop is the problem of reproducibility in scientific research.
