Welcome to this Special Issue of EuroScientist on: Reproducibility and Replicability!
In this issue we explore the various facts of current research practice that are hindering confirmation of scientific results that have already been published. One of the biggest issues is linked to the drive for novelty, which means that reproducibility and replicability studies are not valued for their contribution to the self-correction required for furthering scientific knowledge. One key condition for reproducibility is the need to have access to the raw data from the original study. By contrast, the ability to replicate a study hinges on new data collection by following the original experimental set-up.
Although there are many issues that are discipline-specific, it is becoming clear that academic publishers have a role to play in providing credit to any scientists taking part to reproducibility or replicability studies. This selection of articles reveals that several solutions have been tested in some disciplines such as pre-registration studies in neuroscience and psychology, before being adopted more widely in the life and social sciences. Other academic publishers have put greater emphasis on data quality checks. And post-publication peer-review has been introduced as a means to entice greater study quality, capable of being reproduced and replicated by peers.
Meanwhile, the importance of changing the culture of researchers themselves is also key. Scientists themselves need to more systematically adopt an open data policy to facilitate reproducibility studies.
Enjoy this special issue and don’t forget to comment below each article and to share them and distribute your preferred articles widely.
The EuroScientist team.
Reviewer anonymity: a hindrance to self-correction in science?
By Sabine Louët, EuroScientist Editor.
Reward time for reproducibility
By Fiona Dunlevy, science journalist, France.
Data sharing shifts scientific culture
By Constanze Böttcher, science journalist, Germany.
Validation by replication
Alessandro Vespignani: open data is key to preserve nature of science
By Luca Tancredi Barone, science journalist, Spain.
Minding replication, mending publication
By Vanessa Schipani, science journalist, The Netherlands.
Do you believe that replicability and reproducibility are under-rated?
Are there initiatives introduced in your field that could improve reproducibility and be emulated by others?
Should evaluation method grant greater credit for reproducibility or replicability studies?
Your thoughts and opinions are valuable, feel free to use our simple comment section below.
Featured image credit: CC BY 2.0 by fdecomite
EuroScientist is looking for contributors!
If you would like to write guest posts in EuroScientist magazine, send us your suggestions of articles at firstname.lastname@example.org.