Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 230448 |
| Journal | Royal Society Open Science |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| Early online date | 19 Jul 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Jul 2023 |
Data Availability Statement
This article has no additional data.Acknowledgements
The genesis of this research was formed at the Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop, hosted at the Lorentz Center (https://www.lorentzcenter.nl/). Chris Hartgerink contributed to parts of the manuscript, in particular to the subsection on publishing reform, at an earlier stage. However, Chris opted out of formal co-authorship because of principled objections to the traditional publishing system.Funding
D.R. was funded by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (grant no. 016.Vidi.188.001).
Keywords
- institutional reform
- meta-science
- methodology
- publishing
- scientific error
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General