A manifesto for reproducible science

@article{Munafo2017AMF,
  title={A manifesto for reproducible science},
  author={Marcus Robert Munafo and Brian A. Nosek and Dorothy V. M. Bishop and Katherine S. Button and Christopher D. Chambers and Nathalie Percie du Sert and Uri Simonsohn and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers and Jennifer Ware and John P. A. Ioannidis},
  journal={Nature human behaviour},
  year={2017},
  volume={1}
}
Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers… Expand
Research Culture and Reproducibility
TLDR
This work argues that these issues stem from two broad causal mechanisms: the cognitive biases of researchers and the incentive structures within which researchers operate. Expand
Fostering Robust, Reliable, and Replicable Research at the Journal of Management
TLDR
Structural changes made at the Journal of Management and to its review process designed to increase transparency and establish new standards of robust, reliable, and replicable research are described. Expand
Arguments against efficiency in science
A recent commentary critiqued the embrace of performance metrics at research universities. Drawing on our research studying the metascience movement, we suggest that the drive to maximize efficiencyExpand
Quality Control for Scientific Research: Addressing Reproducibility, Responsiveness, and Relevance
TLDR
It is argued that one quality control metric—the probability that a research hypothesis is true—is required to address at least relevance and may also be part of the solution for improving responsiveness and reproducibility. Expand
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
TLDR
An overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner is provided, including a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, and recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches are introduced. Expand
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
TLDR
An overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner is provided, including a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, and recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches are introduced. Expand
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
TLDR
An overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner is provided, including a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, and recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches are introduced. Expand
Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative
TLDR
The QUEST (Quality-Ethics-Open Science-Translation) Center offers a unique opportunity to examine the role of institutions and some activities described in this paper focus on the institution, whereas others may benefit the national and international scientific community. Expand
Opinion: Reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry
TLDR
It is argued that the decades-long process of metabolizing reproducibility failures through theoretical and synthesis articles that integrate diverse perspectives should be encouraged, and science needs to be given the time necessary to reconcile conflicting results. Expand
Seven Reasons Why: A User’s Guide to Transparency and Reproducibility
TLDR
Seven reasons why journals and authors should implement transparent guidelines are presented, which argue that sharing replication materials, which include full disclosure of the methods used to collect and analyze data, the public availability of raw and manipulated data, may generate transparency in science. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 109 REFERENCES
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices
TLDR
A map of ongoing efforts is provided and plans for connecting the multiple meta-research efforts across science worldwide are discussed. Expand
Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions
TLDR
An optimality model is developed that predicts the most rational research strategy, in terms of the proportion of research effort spent on seeking novel results rather than on confirmatory studies, and the amount ofResearch effort per exploratory study. Expand
Scientific Utopia
TLDR
Strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation are developed that account for ordinary human motivations and biases and can reduce the persistence of false findings. Expand
Promoting an open research culture
Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1,Expand
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
TLDR
This work suggests a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and proposes a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle. Expand
Registered Reports A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results
Ignoring replications and negative results is bad for science. This special issue presents a novel publishing format – Registered Reports – as a partial solution. Peer review occurs prior to dataExpand
Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research
TLDR
The reproducibility problems in basic and preclinical biomedical research are reviewed, some of the complexities are highlighted, and potential solutions that may help improve research quality and reproducible are discussed. Expand
Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
TLDR
BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. Expand
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.
TLDR
For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard and accurate and complete reporting is needed. Expand
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
TLDR
It is demonstrated that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately, and provides a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...