Read on Twitter
Science has been in a “ #replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything? https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics That's a good summary, but I think the diagnosis that "Bad papers are still published." should be less surprising and concerning that it reads 1/
#OpenScience
#OpenScience
It takes time for new ideas (e.g., more transparency) and new tools to be adopted and implemented. When a project lasts at least five years from start to publication, one cannot expect much to show up in a 10-year period. One could look at "early indicators" such as the 2/
acceptance of registered reports by journals and their publication (
from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y)
Asking what "we" have learned is hard to answer because awareness of the problems in science is still very uneven, IMO. Some learned a lot, some less, some maybe nothing 3/
from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y)Asking what "we" have learned is hard to answer because awareness of the problems in science is still very uneven, IMO. Some learned a lot, some less, some maybe nothing 3/
bc they are active in communities/subfields where this is not an issue (not pointing any fingers here). I think the speed of change in some fields is remarkable given the path dependence of training, publishing processes etc., but 10 years is too early to expect broad changes 4/
