Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349

Maarten Derksen, Stephanie Meirmans, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Jeannette Pols, Annemarijn de Boer, Hans van Eyghen, Surya Gayet, Rolf Groenwold, Dennis Hernaus, Pim Huijnen, Nienke Jonker, Renske de Kleijn, Charlotte F Kroll, Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos, Nynke van der Laan, Kim Luijken, Ewout Meijer, Rachel S A Pear, Rik Peels, Robin Peeters, Charlotte C S Rulkens, Christin Scholz, Nienke Smit, Rombert Stapel, Joost de Winter

{"title":"Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities.","authors":"Maarten Derksen, Stephanie Meirmans, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Jeannette Pols, Annemarijn de Boer, Hans van Eyghen, Surya Gayet, Rolf Groenwold, Dennis Hernaus, Pim Huijnen, Nienke Jonker, Renske de Kleijn, Charlotte F Kroll, Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos, Nynke van der Laan, Kim Luijken, Ewout Meijer, Rachel S A Pear, Rik Peels, Robin Peeters, Charlotte C S Rulkens, Christin Scholz, Nienke Smit, Rombert Stapel, Joost de Winter","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

荷兰的复制研究：为资助者、出版商和编辑以及大学提供的经验教训和建议。

根据我们开展复制研究的经验，我们介绍了我们在复制研究中吸取的教训，并就复制在科学中的作用以及如何支持和资助复制研究向研究人员、政策制定者和资助者提出了建议。我们首先指出了开展重复研究的各种益处。其次，我们认为通常有必要改进原始研究的各个方面，即使这意味着要偏离原始方案。第三，我们认为，复制研究凸显了提高研究过程透明度的重要性和必要性，但同时也清楚地表明了提高研究过程透明度的难度。第四，我们强调值得在人文学科中尝试复制。最后，我们特别针对资助者、编辑和出版商以及大学和其他研究机构提出了有关复制和复制研究的建议。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.