In recent years, there’s been increasing awareness of a problem across many scientific fields—the problem of reproducibility. Can experiments be repeated (or "reproduced") to arrive at the same result? Evidence is piling up that the answer, all too often, is no. This makes it difficult to know which results we can confidently rely on, and which are spurious.
"It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the creation of a new publishing platform, focused on hosting formal replications, alongside these review style evaluations of method, would provide a new and more focused home for the type of discussion. Overall, implementing such a system would vastly improve the accessibility of research; both through providing links to peer reviewed replications which have not been filtered by the file drawer, and literally, in terms enabling an overview replication information out at a glance."
Most scientists I know get a chuckle out of the Journal of Irreproducible Results (JIR), a humor journal that often parodies scientific papers. Back in the day, we used to chuckle at articles like "Any Eye for an Eye for an Arm and a Leg: Applied Dysfunctional Measurement" and "A Double Blind Efficacy Trial of Placebos, Extra Strength Placebos and Generic Placebos." Unfortunately, these days, reporting on science is giving the impression that the JIR is a little too close to the truth, at least when it comes to reproduciblity, so much so that the issue even has its own name and Wikipedia entry: Replication (or reproducibility) crisis.
Advancements in Automation, Reproducibility and Robustness Enables Research to Scale like Never Before. SCIEX, a global leader in life science analytical technologies, today announced their latest proteomics solution advancements, which address the challenges of throughput, reproducibility and robustness faced by Academic Labs working to advance precision medicine.
Researchers write that "reproducibility,"replicability" and several other terms are not used consistently in scientific communication.
Inspired by a new movement to improve the transparency and reproducibility of research, graduate student John Lurquin wants the University of Colorado to adopt a campus-wide transparent research policy requiring academics to publish data and information about their experiments. Though reproducibility, or the ability to reproduce the results of an experiment, has always been on the minds of researchers, it's been getting more attention recently, thanks to several studies measuring the reliability of published research, said Lurquin, a doctoral student in the department of psychology and neuroscience and an outgoing student body president.