Observations on reproducibility and research integrity from London STM Week
Today’s guest post is a recap of the recent SSP webinar, Ask the Experts: Trust in Science, with Tracey Brown (Sense About Science), Richard Sever (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press), and Eefke Smith (STM) by the moderator, Anita de Waard (Elsevier).
Today’s guest post, by Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse, highlights some of the challenges – and opportunities – of evaluating the quality of research rather than its impact.
A presentation to the 2016 ISMTE US Conference. Something of a “state of our industry” overview, or perhaps, everything I needed to know I learned from the other bloggers at The Scholarly Kitchen.
John Oliver offers a scathing look at the poor practices of media in scientific reporting.
A short film on the need for accurate statistical analysis and data availability.
It’s easy to think that scientific ethics are straightforward and that results that aren’t robust end up in the literature because some people give into the temptation to cheat. The reality is more complex. If you were in this situation, what would you do?
In this episode, Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky talks with podcast host Michael Clarke about the causes, trends, and problems with retractions of scientific research papers.
Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, librarians at Utrecht University, talk with podcast host Stewart Wills about their 101 Innovations project.
A conversation with COPE’s Charlotte Haug.
Journals and funding agencies are focusing on data availability as a route to better experimental reproducibility. But the data is only part of the equation. A new set of NIH guidelines is a great start toward making methodologies better documented and more available.
Reproducibility of research results, and the lack of availability of negative results have both been deemed “crises” for the research community. But proposed solutions for each seem at odds with one another.
Privacy, trust and managing the cultural record bubble to the surface of growing concerns.
A new paper finds unexpected disturbances around p-value ranges approaching 0.05. Is there something going on beyond mere science?
The growing perception that science is built on sand demands not only some new incentives, but also an understanding that science is not always easy — or possible — to replicate.