Cargando…

Perspectives on scientific error

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on refor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Ravenzwaaij, D., Bakker, M., Heesen, R., Romero, F., van Dongen, N., Crüwell, S., Field, S. M., Held, L., Munafò, M. R., Pittelkow, M. M., Tiokhin, L., Traag, V. A., van den Akker, O. R., van ‘t Veer, A. E., Wagenmakers, E. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10354464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37476516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230448
_version_ 1785074934847897600
author van Ravenzwaaij, D.
Bakker, M.
Heesen, R.
Romero, F.
van Dongen, N.
Crüwell, S.
Field, S. M.
Held, L.
Munafò, M. R.
Pittelkow, M. M.
Tiokhin, L.
Traag, V. A.
van den Akker, O. R.
van ‘t Veer, A. E.
Wagenmakers, E. J.
author_facet van Ravenzwaaij, D.
Bakker, M.
Heesen, R.
Romero, F.
van Dongen, N.
Crüwell, S.
Field, S. M.
Held, L.
Munafò, M. R.
Pittelkow, M. M.
Tiokhin, L.
Traag, V. A.
van den Akker, O. R.
van ‘t Veer, A. E.
Wagenmakers, E. J.
author_sort van Ravenzwaaij, D.
collection PubMed
description Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10354464
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103544642023-07-20 Perspectives on scientific error van Ravenzwaaij, D. Bakker, M. Heesen, R. Romero, F. van Dongen, N. Crüwell, S. Field, S. M. Held, L. Munafò, M. R. Pittelkow, M. M. Tiokhin, L. Traag, V. A. van den Akker, O. R. van ‘t Veer, A. E. Wagenmakers, E. J. R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings. The Royal Society 2023-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10354464/ /pubmed/37476516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230448 Text en © 2023 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
van Ravenzwaaij, D.
Bakker, M.
Heesen, R.
Romero, F.
van Dongen, N.
Crüwell, S.
Field, S. M.
Held, L.
Munafò, M. R.
Pittelkow, M. M.
Tiokhin, L.
Traag, V. A.
van den Akker, O. R.
van ‘t Veer, A. E.
Wagenmakers, E. J.
Perspectives on scientific error
title Perspectives on scientific error
title_full Perspectives on scientific error
title_fullStr Perspectives on scientific error
title_full_unstemmed Perspectives on scientific error
title_short Perspectives on scientific error
title_sort perspectives on scientific error
topic Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10354464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37476516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230448
work_keys_str_mv AT vanravenzwaaijd perspectivesonscientificerror
AT bakkerm perspectivesonscientificerror
AT heesenr perspectivesonscientificerror
AT romerof perspectivesonscientificerror
AT vandongenn perspectivesonscientificerror
AT cruwells perspectivesonscientificerror
AT fieldsm perspectivesonscientificerror
AT heldl perspectivesonscientificerror
AT munafomr perspectivesonscientificerror
AT pittelkowmm perspectivesonscientificerror
AT tiokhinl perspectivesonscientificerror
AT traagva perspectivesonscientificerror
AT vandenakkeror perspectivesonscientificerror
AT vantveerae perspectivesonscientificerror
AT wagenmakersej perspectivesonscientificerror