Reproducibility in Subsurface Geoscience

M. Steventon, Chris Jackson, M. Ireland, Matt Hall, M. Munafo, Kathryn Roberts
{"title":"Reproducibility in Subsurface Geoscience","authors":"M. Steventon, Chris Jackson, M. Ireland, Matt Hall, M. Munafo, Kathryn Roberts","doi":"10.3389/esss.2022.10051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reproducibility, the extent to which consistent results are obtained when an experiment or study is repeated, sits at the foundation of science. The aim of this process is to produce robust findings and knowledge, with reproducibility being the screening tool to benchmark how well we are implementing the scientific method. However, the re-examination of results from many disciplines has caused significant concern as to the reproducibility of published findings. This concern is well-founded—our ability to independently reproduce results build trust within the scientific community, between scientists and policy makers, and the general public. Within geoscience, discussions and practical frameworks for reproducibility are in their infancy, particularly in subsurface geoscience, an area where there are commonly significant uncertainties related to data (e.g., geographical coverage). Given the vital role of subsurface geoscience as part of sustainable development pathways and in achieving Net Zero, such as for carbon capture storage, mining, and natural hazard assessment, there is likely to be increased scrutiny on the reproducibility of geoscience results. We surveyed 346 Earth scientists from a broad section of academia, government, and industry to understand their experience and knowledge of reproducibility in the subsurface. More than 85% of respondents recognised there is a reproducibility problem in subsurface geoscience, with >90% of respondents viewing conceptual biases as having a major impact on the robustness of their findings and overall quality of their work. Access to data, undocumented methodologies, and confidentiality issues (e.g., use of proprietary data and methods) were identified as major barriers to reproducing published results. Overall, the survey results suggest a need for funding bodies, data providers, research groups, and publishers to build a framework and a set of minimum standards for increasing the reproducibility of, and political and public trust in, the results of subsurface studies.","PeriodicalId":148192,"journal":{"name":"Earth Science, Systems and Society","volume":"4 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Science, Systems and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/esss.2022.10051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Reproducibility, the extent to which consistent results are obtained when an experiment or study is repeated, sits at the foundation of science. The aim of this process is to produce robust findings and knowledge, with reproducibility being the screening tool to benchmark how well we are implementing the scientific method. However, the re-examination of results from many disciplines has caused significant concern as to the reproducibility of published findings. This concern is well-founded—our ability to independently reproduce results build trust within the scientific community, between scientists and policy makers, and the general public. Within geoscience, discussions and practical frameworks for reproducibility are in their infancy, particularly in subsurface geoscience, an area where there are commonly significant uncertainties related to data (e.g., geographical coverage). Given the vital role of subsurface geoscience as part of sustainable development pathways and in achieving Net Zero, such as for carbon capture storage, mining, and natural hazard assessment, there is likely to be increased scrutiny on the reproducibility of geoscience results. We surveyed 346 Earth scientists from a broad section of academia, government, and industry to understand their experience and knowledge of reproducibility in the subsurface. More than 85% of respondents recognised there is a reproducibility problem in subsurface geoscience, with >90% of respondents viewing conceptual biases as having a major impact on the robustness of their findings and overall quality of their work. Access to data, undocumented methodologies, and confidentiality issues (e.g., use of proprietary data and methods) were identified as major barriers to reproducing published results. Overall, the survey results suggest a need for funding bodies, data providers, research groups, and publishers to build a framework and a set of minimum standards for increasing the reproducibility of, and political and public trust in, the results of subsurface studies.
地下地球科学中的再现性
可重复性,即重复实验或研究获得一致结果的程度,是科学的基础。这一过程的目的是产生可靠的发现和知识,可重复性是我们实施科学方法的基准筛选工具。然而,对许多学科结果的重新检查引起了对已发表发现的可重复性的重大关注。这种担忧是有根据的——我们独立重现结果的能力在科学界、科学家和决策者以及公众之间建立了信任。在地球科学领域,关于可重复性的讨论和实践框架还处于起步阶段,特别是在地下地球科学领域,这个领域通常存在与数据相关的重大不确定性(例如,地理覆盖范围)。鉴于地下地球科学作为可持续发展途径的一部分以及在实现净零排放(如碳捕获储存、采矿和自然灾害评估)方面的重要作用,对地球科学结果的可重复性的审查可能会增加。我们调查了来自学术界、政府和工业界的346位地球科学家,以了解他们在地下可重复性方面的经验和知识。超过85%的受访者认识到地下地球科学存在可重复性问题,超过90%的受访者认为概念偏差对他们发现的稳健性和工作的整体质量有重大影响。数据访问、未记录的方法和保密性问题(例如,专有数据和方法的使用)被认为是再现已发表结果的主要障碍。总的来说,调查结果表明,资助机构、数据提供者、研究小组和出版商需要建立一个框架和一套最低标准,以提高地下研究结果的可重复性,并提高政治和公众对地下研究结果的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信