The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

116 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses
solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.
Keywords: reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research
Original languageEnglish
Article number90
JournalAnimals
Volume7
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Scientific Misconduct
Literature
Information Dissemination

Cite this

@article{f216c072eb8c4b50b7fd3150b4563909,
title = "The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them)",
abstract = "In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discussessolutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.Keywords: reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research",
author = "J.M. Wicherts",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.3390/ani7120090",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "Animals",
issn = "2076-2615",
publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",
number = "12",

}

The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them). / Wicherts, J.M.

In: Animals, Vol. 7, No. 12, 90, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them)

AU - Wicherts, J.M.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discussessolutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.Keywords: reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research

AB - In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discussessolutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.Keywords: reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research

U2 - 10.3390/ani7120090

DO - 10.3390/ani7120090

M3 - Article

VL - 7

JO - Animals

JF - Animals

SN - 2076-2615

IS - 12

M1 - 90

ER -