Reproducibility in research
by John Donne [25 Views] 2019-10-02 13:55:10
In response to: Re: Есть мнение что человечество не имеет к этому никакого отношения. by Mythbuster, 2019-10-02 13:40:27
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research:
- More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments;
- more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
- 52% agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility;
- less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong;
- most say that they still trust the published literature.
Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak.
- The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.
- 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.
what led to problems in reproducibility?
- More than 60% of respondents said that each of two factors — pressure to publish and selective reporting;
- More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power.
But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces:
- competition for grants and positions,
- and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research.
Private Reply |
Like | Useful | Dislike | Trash | Report