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?
More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778?SThisFB
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This can go a little further. Models that purport to foretell the future should be able to replicate the past. That will put a nail in the heart of the “Climate” scam
Except that what they are doing is closing the door and making opposing research to their infinitely impossible to overturn. They are moving the goalposts and raising the requirements to publish while for years like setting the precedence in case law.
Statement of reproducibility from some future clime modeling paper: “We ran the model twice, and got the same result. Then our friends ran it and got the same results.”
As a graduate student in biochemistry in the late 60’s, I recall my graduate adviser remarking that, in a peer review journal, one has to rely on the Materials, Methods and Results sections as correct. One might disagree with some of the conclusions drawn from the results or, even better, have that “Aha!” moment when the discussion triggers an idea, but one could always, at the very least, trust the results as valid.
Now I find it appalling that a journal like Nature has to “begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers”!
In the words of my grandson. WTF?
I have been out of active research for some 20 years now and have missed it, but if this is what it has come to, I can’t say I’m sorry to have missed the perversion of what I once loved.
Remember, in climate science you work backward. First you determine the results (CAGW), then you find a method that you know how to use, and lastly you create the material (global temp data) so that everything works out. You really don’t need any actual accurate temperature data to start with.
+10
What about robot generated papers like most journalism today? Are they subject to the same rules?
e.g. https://www.google.at/search?q=vienna+study+about+mobile+phones+harmful+false&oq=vienna+study+about+mobile+phones+harmful+false&aqs=chrome.
co2islife,
sent your article to
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/
Thanks – Hans
/ citation ‘the left doesn’t care if Iran is on the control knob’ – no idea if they even understand your point; anyway! /