Send us a link
John Ioannidis discusses the potential effects on clinical research of a 2017 proposal to lower the default P value threshold for statistical significance from .05 to .005 as a means to reduce false-positive findings.
That's a myth, as Daniele Fanelli of the London School of Economics suggests in this week’s PNAS.
Should we treat preprints the same way that we treat reviewed and published material? If so, how can we make that clear to readers?
On the inadequacy and lack of transparency of most research institutions’ responses to allegations of research misconduct.
Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.
Internal and external pressure drive a rush toward prestige.
Some scientists say they should have the right to review stories in which their work or words are covered prior to publication. Journalists disagree.
How Andrew Wakefield’s shoddy science fueled autism-vaccine fears.
Publishers would need to join forces to apply image-checking software across the literature.
The case for decentralized, trusted platforms for the dissemination of scientific information and attribution.
Striking success has been had in catalyzing retractions by publicly calling out perplexing data and spotting anomalies in the literature.
Climate skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and the anti-immunization movement are on the rise. At the same time, fraudulent research and issues with the replicability of scientific results prompt the question if science is still a reliable source for political decision-making.
Science, it turns out, is an excellent place to find such people. After all, the scientific method requires you to recognize when you’re wrong - to do so happily, in fact. The story of Daniel Bolnick, an evolutionary biologist who had the courage to recognize his mistake.
Analysis suggesting that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.
More than just an academic problem: on the repercussions of scienctific misconduct on the careers of honest and hard-working scientists.
For science to progress, we have to accept the inevitability of error.
There have been two distinct responses to the replication crisis – by instituting measures like registered reports and by making data openly available. But another group continues to remain in denial.
The goal is to customize treatments for cancer and other diseases to a patient's own biology. But something as simple as failing to take care of tissue samples en route to the lab can derail that.
This advice is both hyperbolic and not nearly as crazy as it sounds.
Leonard Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute, discusses the causes of irreproducible science and his latest effort to spread best practices.
A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct.
A researcher specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder is facing jail time for allegedly embezzling tens of thousands of dollars of federal grant money.
Creating a culture of replication takes prizes, grants and magnanimity — as well as publications.
