Scientific & Statistical Reasoning – Article summary (UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM)
- 2181 keer gelezen
There is a publication bias in research. Mostly positive results – that is significant – are being published and non-significant results are often not published. This leads to researchers only trying to find significant results instead of genuine effects or non-effects.
Researchers are more likely to find significant results because of flexible analysis options (1), the confirmation bias (2) and the drive to find significant results (3). It is possible to find significant results everywhere if you search hard enough. Direct replications do not occur often in research and are almost never published.
There are several practices that can increase publishability but can decrease the validity of the results:
Conceptual replication involves deliberately changing the operationalization of the key elements of the design such as the independent variable, dependent variable or both. Demonstrating the same effects with multiple operationalizations provides confidence in its conceptual interpretation. Conceptual replication is not an effective replacement for direct replication.
The peer review process offers a way to detect false results. Not publishing articles without replications would also be effective in lessening the publication bias and the number of false results in science. This could also be ineffective, because it could reduce the number of innovative research as scientists might ‘play it on safe’.
Paradigm-driven research can be used to both confirm and disconfirm prior results. It accumulates knowledge by systematically altering a procedure to investigate a theory or a research question. This includes both replication and extension of the research. One pitfall of paradigm-driven research is that the research could become about the methodology, instead of the theory. Conceptual replication prevents this.
Check-lists could provide effective when conducting research as this prevents information from being left out. A metric that determines what is worth replicating could also prove to be effective. Resource constraints to replicate some findings could be overcome by using crowdfunding. Peer reviewers judge whether a finding is important enough to be published, but they are not always capable of making that judgement.
Another solution to the publication bias and the number of false results in science is to shift the attention from publishing – make publishing trivial – to the evaluation of the research.
The solution to the previously described problems would be open data (1), open materials (2) and open workflow (3).
Open data refers to sharing the data which allows other researchers to confirm the data. Making data open increases the likelihood of finding and correcting errors and ultimately improving reported results. Data openness can be a problem when the data cannot ensure anonymity of the participant’s identity or when the data is going to be used for a lot of research projects and the data collection process is intense.
Open methods and materials can have the same effect as open data and can also facilitate progress in reuse, adaptation and extension for new research. The availability of the materials and methods will also speed up productivity by eliminating the need to reinvent or recreate them.
Open workflow refers to openness of the research process. This could include preregistering the research process, what statistical analyses will be used and so on. This makes it more difficult to hide undesirable results.
Join with a free account for more service, or become a member for full access to exclusives and extra support of WorldSupporter >>
This bundle contains everything you need to know for the fifth interim exam for the course "Scientific & Statistical Reasoning" given at the University of Amsterdam. It contains both articles, book chapters and lectures. It consists of the following materials:
...This bundle contains all the summaries for the course "Scientific & Statistical Reasoning" given at the University of Amsterdam. It contains the following articles:
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Main summaries home pages:
Main study fields:
Business organization and economics, Communication & Marketing, Education & Pedagogic Sciences, International Relations and Politics, IT and Technology, Law & Administration, Medicine & Health Care, Nature & Environmental Sciences, Psychology and behavioral sciences, Science and academic Research, Society & Culture, Tourisme & Sports
Main study fields NL:
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
2199 |
Add new contribution