From the Journal of Irreproducible Science – over 2/3s of researchers say they are unable to replicate study results
WUWT Reader “QQBoss” writes:
The BBC reports (shockingly), that the journal Nature is going to begin requiring a reproducibility checklist of authors, based on a survey performed last year where at least 70% of respondents (self-selected, of course) indicated that they were unable to reproduce expected results. As the ability to replicate studies is what allows science to demonstrate meaningfulness and continue moving the body of knowledge forward, it is surprising that it has taken this long for top of the line journals to more strongly encourage replication to establish validity.
“Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper,” says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.
But will they take the next step and more actively police published research and denote when it is not replicable? There needs to be an accessible list of papers that sits between valid, replicated studies and the full blown Retraction Watch . I highly doubt that most journals are willing to self-police themselves, so just as Retraction Watch has come into being, perhaps there needs to be be a web site that aggregates the list of all papers published each year and allows researchers who are able to replicate results to make some fanfare when they are able to remove a paper from the list, since replications are usually quiet affairs.
In the face of the hockey shticks, 97%s, and PAL reviews, combined with researchers refusing to release data “because you want to find fault with it” or just handing their hard drives over to their dogs to chew on, what percentage of AGW-related studies should be listed as unreplicable, perhaps even nonredeemable?
Has Nature thought through the implications of what they are suggesting for a significant amount of the papers they have pushed through that under tougher (aka more meaningful) standards would never have seen the light of day?