1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Baker, M. 533(7604):452–454. ![1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Survey sheds light on the 'crisis' rocking research. [Excerpt] More than 70\,% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. [\n] The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52\,% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31\,% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. [\n] [...] [\n] Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. [...] [\n] The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. ” We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads.” [\n] [...] [::The cause] The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60\,% of respondents said that each of two factors – pressure to publish and selective reporting – always or often contributed. More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat. [\n] But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research. [...]
@article{baker500ScientistsLift2016,
title = {1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility},
author = {Baker, Monya},
date = {2016-05},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {533},
pages = {452--454},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/533452a},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a},
abstract = {Survey sheds light on the 'crisis' rocking research.
[Excerpt] More than 70\,\% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.
[\textbackslash n] The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52\,\% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31\,\% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[\textbackslash n] Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. [...]
[\textbackslash n] The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. ” We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads.”
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[::The cause]
The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60\,\% of respondents said that each of two factors -- pressure to publish and selective reporting -- always or often contributed. More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat.
[\textbackslash n] But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14042568,epistemology,open-science,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-knowledge-sharing},
number = {7604}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"RbXuSCGF3KprFSAiw","bibbaseid":"baker-1500scientistsliftthelidonreproducibility","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Baker, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Baker"],"firstnames":["Monya"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2016-05","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"533","pages":"452–454","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/533452a","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a","abstract":"Survey sheds light on the 'crisis' rocking research. [Excerpt] More than 70\\,% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. [\\n] The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52\\,% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31\\,% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. [\\n] [...] [\\n] Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. [...] [\\n] The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. ” We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads.” [\\n] [...] [::The cause] The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60\\,% of respondents said that each of two factors – pressure to publish and selective reporting – always or often contributed. More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat. [\\n] But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14042568,epistemology,open-science,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-knowledge-sharing","number":"7604","bibtex":"@article{baker500ScientistsLift2016,\n title = {1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility},\n author = {Baker, Monya},\n date = {2016-05},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {533},\n pages = {452--454},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/533452a},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a},\n abstract = {Survey sheds light on the 'crisis' rocking research.\n\n[Excerpt] More than 70\\,\\% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52\\,\\% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31\\,\\% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. ” We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads.”\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[::The cause]\n\nThe survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60\\,\\% of respondents said that each of two factors -- pressure to publish and selective reporting -- always or often contributed. More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14042568,epistemology,open-science,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-knowledge-sharing},\n number = {7604}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Baker, M."],"key":"baker500ScientistsLift2016","id":"baker500ScientistsLift2016","bibbaseid":"baker-1500scientistsliftthelidonreproducibility","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14042568","epistemology","open-science","reproducibility","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:01.304Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14042568","epistemology","open-science","reproducibility","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"search_terms":["500","scientists","lift","lid","reproducibility","baker"],"title":"1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}