Replication marketplaces would help science to become more self-correcting.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2024-10-02 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.240850
Joachim Hüffmeier, Clara Kühner
{"title":"Replication marketplaces would help science to become more self-correcting.","authors":"Joachim Hüffmeier, Clara Kühner","doi":"10.1098/rsos.240850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Independent replications are very rare in the behavioural and social sciences. This is problematic because they can help to detect 'false positives' in published research and, in turn, contribute to scientific self-correction. The lack of replication studies is, among other factors, due to a rather passive editorial approach concerning replications by many journals, which does not encourage and may sometimes even actively discourage submission of replications. In this Perspective article, we advocate for a more proactive editorial approach concerning replications and suggest introducing journal-based <i>replication marketplaces</i> as a new publication track. We argue that such replication marketplaces could solve the long-standing problem of lacking independent replications. To establish these marketplaces, a designated part of a journal's editorial board identifies the most relevant new findings reported within the journal's pages and publicly offers them for replication. This public offering could be combined with small grants for authors to support these replications. Authors then compete for the first accepted registered report to conduct the related replications and can thus be sure that their replication will be published independent of the later findings. Replication marketplaces would not only increase the prevalence of independent replications but also help science to become more self-correcting.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240850","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Independent replications are very rare in the behavioural and social sciences. This is problematic because they can help to detect 'false positives' in published research and, in turn, contribute to scientific self-correction. The lack of replication studies is, among other factors, due to a rather passive editorial approach concerning replications by many journals, which does not encourage and may sometimes even actively discourage submission of replications. In this Perspective article, we advocate for a more proactive editorial approach concerning replications and suggest introducing journal-based replication marketplaces as a new publication track. We argue that such replication marketplaces could solve the long-standing problem of lacking independent replications. To establish these marketplaces, a designated part of a journal's editorial board identifies the most relevant new findings reported within the journal's pages and publicly offers them for replication. This public offering could be combined with small grants for authors to support these replications. Authors then compete for the first accepted registered report to conduct the related replications and can thus be sure that their replication will be published independent of the later findings. Replication marketplaces would not only increase the prevalence of independent replications but also help science to become more self-correcting.

复制市场将有助于科学更好地自我修正。
在行为科学和社会科学领域,独立的重复研究非常罕见。这很成问题,因为它们可以帮助发现已发表研究中的 "假阳性",进而促进科学的自我纠正。除其他因素外,复制研究的缺乏是由于许多期刊对复制采取了相当被动的编辑方法,不鼓励甚至有时会主动阻止提交复制。在这篇 "视角 "文章中,我们提倡对复制采取更加积极主动的编辑方法,并建议引入基于期刊的复制市场作为一种新的出版途径。我们认为,这种复制市场可以解决长期以来缺乏独立复制的问题。为了建立这样的市场,期刊编辑委员会的一个指定部门会确定期刊上报道的最相关的新发现,并公开提供这些发现供复制。公开提供的同时,还可以为作者提供小额资助,以支持这些复制工作。然后,作者们会争夺第一份被接受的注册报告,以进行相关的复制,从而确保他们的复制将独立于后来的发现而被发表。复制市场不仅能提高独立复制的普及率,还能帮助科学更好地进行自我修正。
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
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
×
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