{"id":9688,"date":"2023-01-04T21:46:28","date_gmt":"2023-01-04T21:46:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=9688"},"modified":"2023-01-04T21:46:28","modified_gmt":"2023-01-04T21:46:28","slug":"lots-of-bad-science-still-gets-published-heres-how-we-can-change-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=9688","title":{"rendered":"Lots of bad science still gets published. Here\u2019s how we can change that."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“For over a decade, scientists have been grappling with the alarming realization that many published findings \u2014 in fields ranging from psychology to cancer biology \u2014 may actually be wrong. Or at least, we don\u2019t know if they\u2019re right,because they just don\u2019t hold up when other scientists repeat the same experiments, a process known as replication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a 2015 attempt<\/a> to reproduce 100 psychology studies from high-ranking journals, only 39 of them replicated. And in 2018, one effort<\/a> to repeat influential studies found that 14 out of 28 \u2014 just half \u2014 replicated. Another attempt<\/a> found that only 13 out of 21 social scienceresults picked from the journals Science<\/em> and Nature<\/em> could be reproduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is known as the \u201creplication crisis<\/a>,\u201d and it\u2019s devastating. The ability to repeat an experiment and get consistent results is the bedrock of science.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is where the Transparent Replications project<\/a> comes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The project, launched..by the nonprofit Clearer Thinking, has a simple goal: to replicate any psychology study published in Science<\/em> or Nature<\/em> (as long as it\u2019s not way too expensive or technically hard). The idea is that, from now on, before researchers submit their papers to a prestigious journal, they\u2019ll know that their work will be subjected to replication attempts, and they\u2019ll have to worry about whether their findings hold up. Ideally, this will shift their incentives toward producing more robust research in the first place, as opposed to just racking up another publication in hopes of getting tenure.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/future-perfect\/23489211\/replication-crisis-project-meta-science-psychology<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“For over a decade, scientists have been grappling with the alarming realization that many published findings \u2014 in fields ranging from psychology to cancer biology \u2014 may actually be wrong. Or at least, we don\u2019t know if they\u2019re right, because they just don\u2019t hold up when other scientists repeat the same experiments, a process known as replication.
\nIn a 2015 attempt to reproduce 100 psychology studies from high-ranking journals, only 39 of them replicated. And in 2018, one effort to repeat influential studies found that 14 out of 28 \u2014 just half \u2014 replicated. Another attempt found that only 13 out of 21 social science results picked from the journals Science and Nature could be reproduced.<\/p>\n

This is known as the \u201creplication crisis,\u201d and it\u2019s devastating. The ability to repeat an experiment and get consistent results is the bedrock of science.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“This is where the Transparent Replications project comes in.<\/p>\n

The project, launched..by the nonprofit Clearer Thinking, has a simple goal: to replicate any psychology study published in Science or Nature (as long as it\u2019s not way too expensive or technically hard). The idea is that, from now on, before researchers submit their papers to a prestigious journal, they\u2019ll know that their work will be subjected to replication attempts, and they\u2019ll have to worry about whether their findings hold up. Ideally, this will shift their incentives toward producing more robust research in the first place, as opposed to just racking up another publication in hopes of getting tenure.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[811,48],"class_list":["post-9688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-science","tag-studies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9688"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9689,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9688\/revisions\/9689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}