Fanelli 2018 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
From Bioblast
| Fanelli D (2018) Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:2628-31. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114 |
Fanelli D (2018) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Abstract: Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.
• Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E
Selected quotes
- Recent evidence from metaresearch studies suggests that issues with research integrity and reproducibility, while certainly important phenomena that need to be addressed, are: (i) not distorting the majority of the literature, in science as a whole as well as within any given discipline; (ii) heterogeneously distributed across subfields in any given area, which suggests that generalizations are unjustified; and (iii) not growing, as the crisis narrative would presuppose.
- Therefore, contemporary science could be more accurately portrayed as facing “new opportunities and challenges” or even a “revolution” (45). Efforts to promote transparency and reproducibility would find complete justification in such a narrative of transformation and empowerment, a narrative that is not only more compelling and inspiring than that of a crisis, but also better supported by evidence.
Labels:
Ambiguity crisis, Gentle Science
