Addressing issues with the reproducibility of results is critical for scientific progress, …
Addressing issues with the reproducibility of results is critical for scientific progress, but conflicting ideas about the sources of and solutions to irreproducibility are a barrier to change. Prior work has attempted to address this problem by creating analytical definitions of reproducibility. We take a novel empirical, mixed methods approach to understanding variation in reproducibility conversations, which yields a map of the discursive dimensions of these conversations. This analysis demonstrates that concerns about the incentive structure of science, the transparency of methods and data, and the need to reform academic publishing form the core of reproducibility discussions. We also identify three clusters of discussion that are distinct from the main group: one focused on reagents, another on statistical methods, and a final cluster focused the heterogeneity of the natural world. Although there are discursive differences between scientific and popular articles, there are no strong differences in how scientists and journalists write about the reproducibility crisis. Our findings show that conversations about reproducibility have a clear underlying structure, despite the broad scope and scale of the crisis. Our map demonstrates the value of using qualitative methods to identify the bounds and features of reproducibility discourse, and identifies distinct vocabularies and constituencies that reformers should engage with to promote change.
This essay introduces a new analytical category of scientific actors: the methodologists. …
This essay introduces a new analytical category of scientific actors: the methodologists. These actors are distinguished by their tendency to continue to probing scientific objects that their peers consider to be settled. The methodologists are a useful category of actors for science and technology studies (STS) scholars to follow because they reveal contingencies and uncertainties in taken-for-granted science. Identifying methodologists is useful for STS analysts seeking a way into science in moments when it is no longer “in the making” or there is little active controversy. Studying methodologists is also useful for scholars seeking to understand the genesis of scientific controversies, particularly controversies about long-established methods, facts, or premises.
We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of …
We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports in social and behavioural research. An accompanying online application allows users to complete the form and generate a report that they can submit with their manuscript or post to a public repository.
No restrictions on your remixing, redistributing, or making derivative works. Give credit to the author, as required.
Your remixing, redistributing, or making derivatives works comes with some restrictions, including how it is shared.
Your redistributing comes with some restrictions. Do not remix or make derivative works.
Most restrictive license type. Prohibits most uses, sharing, and any changes.
Copyrighted materials, available under Fair Use and the TEACH Act for US-based educators, or other custom arrangements. Go to the resource provider to see their individual restrictions.
