Publication Bias and Replication Crisis

In summary, the conversation discussed the idea of a science journal that only publishes null results or heavily replicated studies. The participants acknowledged that publication bias is a common issue in the scientific community and that magazines and journals have a business aspect to consider. They also touched upon the importance of falsification in science and suggested that a journal publishing "10 Things That Totally Didn't Work" articles would be beneficial. However, it was unclear where the initial idea came from and the conversation was closed without a definitive answer.
  • #1
Ontophobe
60
1
I've heard tell of a science journal like Science or Nature that a) only publishes studies with null results, and/or b) only publishes heavily replicated studies. Is this true? and if so, what's it called?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ontophobe said:
I've heard tell of a science journal ...

where did you hear that ?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #3
I wouldn't single out Nature or Science here since they are top-notch publications.

Publication bias is a general issue, resulting from human nature. Magazines and Journals need to keep their readers, and nobody gets excited about a "10 things that totally didn't work" article. It's good science to publish that, but it's bad business.
 
  • #4
I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

You're right. It's a business. I don't fault Science or Nature specifically. But I'm with Popper on the role of falsification in science, so basically, I'd absolutely want to read a "10 Things That Totally Didn't Work" article.
 
  • #5
Ontophobe said:
I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

That's not really something we can track down. Not much better than "I know a guy who knows a guy..."

Ontophobe said:
I'd absolutely want to read a "10 Things That Totally Didn't Work" article.

Do you subscribe to Science or Nature? If so, write them and tell them. If not, well, why would they care what a non-subscriber thinks?
 
  • #6
Ontophobe said:
I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

Maybe he was talking about this recent video?

 
  • #7
PF's favorite pastime - guess what the OP meant,
 
  • Like
Likes beamie564 and davenn
  • #8
This thread is closed for now.

@Ontophobe if you have a specific professional article you would like to discuss then please let me know by PM and I will reopen the thread.
 

Related to Publication Bias and Replication Crisis

What is publication bias?

Publication bias is the tendency for researchers and publishers to only publish studies with positive or statistically significant results, while ignoring studies with negative or inconclusive results. This can lead to an overestimation of the effectiveness of certain interventions or treatments, as well as a lack of representation of all available evidence.

What is the replication crisis?

The replication crisis refers to the widespread concern that many scientific studies cannot be reproduced by other researchers, leading to doubts about the validity and reliability of the findings. This is often attributed to factors such as publication bias, small sample sizes, and flawed research methods.

What are the consequences of publication bias and the replication crisis?

Publication bias can lead to a distorted understanding of the true effectiveness of interventions or treatments, as well as a waste of resources on pursuing ineffective or even harmful practices. The replication crisis can erode trust in scientific research and hinder progress in certain fields.

How can publication bias and the replication crisis be addressed?

One way to address publication bias is through pre-registration of study protocols and results, which ensures that all studies are published regardless of their outcomes. The replication crisis can be addressed by encouraging larger sample sizes, open data and sharing of research methods, and promoting a culture of replication studies in the scientific community.

What role do researchers and publishers play in preventing publication bias and the replication crisis?

Researchers can help prevent publication bias by conducting high-quality studies and being transparent about their methods and results. Publishers can also play a role by encouraging the publication of all types of studies and promoting open science practices. Both parties can also be more open to publishing replication studies, which can help address the replication crisis.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
914
Replies
1
Views
691
Replies
3
Views
766
Replies
21
Views
775
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
563
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
556
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
828
Back
Top