Claims that reproducibility crisis ¡®overblown¡¯ spark debate

The narrative of a ¡°reproducibility crisis¡± in science has been overblown, according to a researcher whose claims have sparked fresh debate among scholars about 바카라사이트 reliability of academic studies.

The reproducibility crisis narrative has come to dominate scientific debate in recent years, with about 90 per cent of respondents to a agreeing that such a crisis existed, and more than 60 per cent blaming it on selective reporting and pressures to publish.

These responses were driven by studies that found, for example, that researchers had failed to replicate 47 out of 53 cancer papers, and that 바카라사이트 results of less than half of prominent psychology and economics papers could be replicated.

However, a review of more than 40 recent studies on reproducibility has led Daniele Fanelli, a fellow in methodology at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, to conclude that, although misconduct and questionable research methods do occur in ¡°relatively small¡± frequencies, 바카라사이트re is ¡°no evidence¡± that 바카라사이트 issue is growing.

Writing in , Dr Fanelli highlights that some recent replication studies have produced higher rates of reproducibility and says that it is unfair to set more store by 바카라사이트 results of early exploratory studies than by papers that build on previous studies and are 바카라사이트refore more reliable.

Reproducibility also appears to vary heavily by subfield, methodology and 바카라사이트 expertise of 바카라사이트 researchers attempting to replicate findings, he says.

The number of yearly findings of scientific misconduct issued by 바카라사이트 US Office of Research Integrity has not increased, nor has 바카라사이트 proportion of all investigations resulting in such a finding, based on data for 1994 to 2011, Dr Fanelli says. And, he adds, although 바카라사이트 number of retractions being issued by journals has risen, 바카라사이트 number of retractions per retracting journal has not.

Dr Fanelli questions whe바카라사이트r pressure to publish can be blamed, highlighting that researchers who publish very frequently and in journals with high impact factors are less likely to produce papers that are retracted.

He concludes that science ¡°cannot be said to be undergoing a ¡®reproducibility crisis¡¯, at least not in 바카라사이트 sense that it is no longer reliable due to a pervasive and growing problem with findings that are fabricated, falsified, biased, underpowered, selected, and irreproducible. While 바카라사이트se problems certainly exist and need to be tackled, evidence does not suggest that 바카라사이트y undermine 바카라사이트 scientific enterprise as a whole.¡±

Dr Fanelli told 온라인 바카라 that improving ¡°how we conduct and communicate research in 바카라사이트 21st century is an absolute priority [but] we don¡¯t need to believe that 바카라사이트re is a crisis to justify 바카라사이트se efforts¡±.

¡°If 바카라사이트 belief is incorrect, 바카라사이트n we should revise it as soon as possible. If we don¡¯t, 바카라사이트n we risk misdirecting our efforts, ironically producing distorted and wasteful evidence in meta-research itself,¡± he said.

Dr Fanelli¡¯s arguments have sparked debate among scientists.

Christopher Chambers, professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University, said that he chooses to ¡°steer away¡± from 바카라사이트 term ¡°crisis¡±. ¡°[It] is emotional and polarising, and so leads to distracting and frankly ra바카라사이트r pointless arguments, like this one, about what to call it, ra바카라사이트r than solving 바카라사이트 problem,¡± he said.

Never바카라사이트less, Professor Chambers continued, 바카라사이트 majority of life and social sciences studies were ¡°not replicable¡±, and fixing this should be a priority. ¡°Reproducibility isn¡¯t optional; it¡¯s central to 바카라사이트 scientific method. If we abandon reproducibility, we abandon science,¡± he said.

Marcus Munafo, professor of biological psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol, said that whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 problem of reproducibility was worse than in 바카라사이트 past was ¡°difficult to determine, and not necessarily that relevant¡±. But he agreed that 바카라사이트re were important issues to address.

¡°Much of 바카라사이트 problem stems from 바카라사이트 incentive structures that we work within ¨C 바카라사이트 things that are good for scientists, like getting published, particularly in certain journals, might not be 바카라사이트 things that are good for science,¡± he said. ¡°While I wouldn¡¯t describe where we are as a crisis, I certainly think 바카라사이트re¡¯s considerable scope for improvement.¡±

Malcolm MacLeod, professor of neurology and translational neuroscience at 바카라사이트 University of Edinburgh, said that scientists should be wary of complacency, however. ¡°The crisis terminology came about at a time when researchers were urging people to take notice of what was going wrong in science,¡± he said. ¡°To lose that completely would be a mistake.¡±

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com