TY - JOUR
T1 - Replication studies in the Netherlands
T2 - Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities
AU - Derksen, Maarten
AU - Meirmans, Stephanie
AU - Brenninkmeijer, Jonna
AU - Pols, Jeannette
AU - de Boer, Annemarijn
AU - van Eyghen, Hans
AU - Gayet, Surya
AU - Groenwold, Rolf
AU - Hernaus, Dennis
AU - Huijnen, Pim
AU - Jonker, Nienke
AU - de Kleijn, Renske
AU - Kroll, Charlotte F.
AU - Krypotos, Angelos-Miltiadis
AU - van der Laan, Nynke
AU - Luijken, Kim
AU - Meijer, Ewout
AU - Pear, Rachel S. A.
AU - Peels, Rik
AU - Peeters, Robin
AU - Rulkens, Charlotte C. S.
AU - Scholz, Christin
AU - Smit, Nienke
AU - Stapel, Rombert
AU - de Winter, Joost
PY - 2024/8/11
Y1 - 2024/8/11
N2 - Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.
AB - Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.
KW - Replication
KW - Funding
KW - Reproduction
KW - Transparency
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=wosstart_imp_pure20230417&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:001290255400001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL
U2 - 10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349
DO - 10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349
M3 - Article
C2 - 39135508
SN - 0898-9621
JO - Accountability in Research
JF - Accountability in Research
ER -