In 2004, a landmark study showed that an inexpensive medication to treat parasitic worms could improve health and school attendance for millions of children in many developing countries. Eleven years later, a headline in the Guardian reported that this treatment, deworming, had been "debunked."The pronouncement followed an effort to replicate and re-analyze the original study, as well as an update to a systematic review of the effects of deworming. This story made waves amidst discussion of a reproducibility crisis in some of the social sciences. This paper explores what it means to"replicate"and"reanalyze"a study, both in general and in the specific case of deworming. The paper reviews the broader replication efforts in economics, then examines the key findings of the original deworming paper in light of the "replication," "reanalysis," and "systematic review."The paper also discusses the nature of the link between this single paper's findings, other papers' findings, and any policy recommendations about deworming. This example provides a perspective on the ways replication and reanalysis work, the strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews, and whether there is, in fact, a reproducibility crisis in economics.
Headlines and scholarly publications portray a crisis in biomedical and health sciences. In this webinar, you will learn what the crisis is and the vital role of librarians in addressing it. You will see how you can directly and immediately support reproducible and rigorous research using your expertise and your library services. You will explore reproducibility guidelines and recommendations and develop an action plan for engaging researchers and stakeholders at your institution. #MLAReproducibility Learning Outcomes By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to: describe the basic history of the “reproducibility crisis” and define reproducibility and replicability explain why librarians have a key role in addressing concerns about reproducibility, specifically in terms of the packaging of science explain 3-4 areas where librarians can immediately and directly support reproducible research through existing expertise and services start developing an action plan to engage researchers and stakeholders at their institution about how they will help address research reproducibility and rigor Audience Librarians who work with researchers; librarians who teach, conduct, or assist with evidence-synthesis or critical appraisal, and managers and directors who are interested in allocating resources toward supporting research rigor. No prior knowledge or skills required. Basic knowledge of scholarly research and publishing helpful. Recording ($) is available here: www.medlib-ed.org/products/2069/helping-science-succeed-the-librarians-role-in-addressing-the-reproducibility-crisis-recording
Science progresses through critical evaluation of underlying evidence and independent replication of results. However, most research findings are disseminated without access to supporting raw data, and findings are not routinely replicated. Furthermore, undisclosed flexibility in data analysis, such as incomplete reporting, unclear exclusion criteria, and optional stopping rules allow for presenting exploratory research findings using the tools of confirmatory hypothesis testing. These questionable research practices make results more publishable, though it comes at the expense of their credibility and future replicability. The Center for Open Science builds tools and encourages practices that incentivizes work that is not only good for the scientist, but also good for science. These include open source platforms to organize research, archive results, preregister analyses, and disseminate findings. This poster presents an overview of those practices and gives practical advice for researchers who want to increase the rigor of their practices.
Over the coming years, a core objective of the BNA is to promote and support credibility in neuroscience, facilitating a cultural shift away from ‘publish or perish’ towards one which is best for neuroscience, neuroscientists, policymakers and the public. Among many of our credibility activities, we will lead by example by ensuring that our journal, Brain and Neuroscience Advances, exemplifies scientific practices that aim to improve the reproducibility, replicability and reliability of neuroscience research. To support these practices, we are implementing some of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, including badges for open data, open materials and preregistered studies. The journal also offers the Registered Report (RR) article format. In this editorial, we describe our expectations for articles submitted to Brain and Neuroscience Advances.
By implementing more transparent research practices, authors have the opportunity to stand out and showcase work that is more reproducible, easier to build upon, and more credible. Scientists gain by making work easier to share and maintain within their own laboratories, and the scientific community gains by making underlying data or research materials more available for confirmation or making new discoveries. The following protocol gives authors step‐by‐step instructions for using the free and open source Open Science Framework (OSF) to create a data management plan, preregister their study, use version control, share data and other research materials, or post a preprint for quick and easy dissemination.
Lack of reproducibility in biomedical science is aserious and growing issue. Two publications, in 2011 and 2012, along with other analyses, documented failures to replicate key findings and other fundamental flaws in high-visibility research articles. This triggered action among funding bodies, journals, and other change-agents. Here, I examine well-recognized and underrecognized factors that contribute to experimental failure andsuggest individual and community approaches that can be used to attack these factors and eschew the SPECTRE of irreproducibility.