Researchers tease out different definitions of a crucial scientific term. A semantic confusion is clouding one of the most talked-about issues in research. Scientists agree that there is a crisis in reproducibility, but they can’t agree on what 'reproducibility' means.
Reproducible Science Promoting Open Science
Functional brain hubs are key integrative regions in brain networks. Recently, brain hubs identified through resting-state fMRI have emerged as interesting targets to increase understanding of the relationships between large-scale functional networks and psychopathology. However, few studies have directly addressed the replicability and consistency of the hub regions identified and their association with symptoms. Here, we used the eigenvector centrality (EVC) measure obtained from graph analysis of two large, independent population-based samples of children and adolescents (7-15 years old; total N=652; 341 subjects for site 1 and 311 for site 2) to evaluate the replicability of hub identification. Subsequently, we tested the association between replicable hub regions and psychiatric symptoms. We identified a set of hubs consisting of the anterior medial prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobule/intraparietal sulcus (IPL/IPS). Moreover, lower EVC values in the right IPS were associated with psychiatric symptoms in both samples. Thus, low centrality of the IPS was a replicable sign of potential vulnerability to mental disorders in children. The identification of critical and replicable hubs in functional cortical networks in children and adolescents can foster understanding of the mechanisms underlying mental disorders.
A huge audience of psychologists, students and researchers was drawn to the British Psychological Society debate in London about the reproducibility and replication crisis in psychology. After Brian Nosek and the Open Science Collaboration outlined the difficulty in reproducing psychological findings, the BPS, the Experimental Psychology Society and the Association of Heads of Psychology Departments hoped to host an upbeat and positive debate in the area. Ella Rhodes reports from a British Psychological Society debate.
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.
Here is the past week’s career-related news from across the Science family of publications.
Two new research papers on scabies and tapeworms published today showcase a new collaboration with protocols.io. This demonstrates a new way to share scientific methods that allows scientists to better repeat and build upon these complicated studies on difficult-to-study parasites. It also highlights a new means of writing all research papers with citable methods that can be updated over time.
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.
A few years ago, the topic of whether scientific papers are reproducible or not would have been an odd thing to see in a newspaper. But not any more: both the popular media and the journals themselves have been trying to deal with the topic, amid reports that far too many results can’t be replicated. Large scale efforts have begun to examine key papers in experimental psychology, among other areas. Reports from the biopharma industry about the numbers of interesting biology papers that don’t hold up have stirred alarm as well. But as far as I can tell, chemistry has largely escaped the current rounds of criticism.