Intelligent Design Peer review

At Nature: Surviving the “reproducibility apocalypse”

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

Researchers, says an experimental psychologist, generally know what they should do:

Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.Dorothy Bishop, “Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility” at Nature

That’s interesting, considering how often we were ordered to see science as the relentless pursuit of truth. If we start with something as basic as giving up gimmicks, maybe we’ll get further.

She offers some thoughts on suggested reforms.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Another look at the call to abandon statistical significance

and

Pushback against abandoning statistical significance in science

One Reply to “At Nature: Surviving the “reproducibility apocalypse”

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    Well, come on. A job’s a job, and ya gotta give the audience what they want. And “surprising new discoveries” are what they want.
    So ignore the HUGE piles of WELL DOCUMENTED studies on the connection of IQ to ethnic background and get back to more studies on whether wine is/is not good for your health (I’m looking for more “is good” myself).

Leave a Reply