Perspectives on scientific error
Don van Ravenzwaaija✉, Marjan Bakkerb, Remco Heesenc d, Felipe Romeroa, Noah N. N. van Dongene, Sophia Crüwellf, Sarahanne Miranda Fieldg, Leonhard Heldh, Marcus Robert Munafoi, Merle-Marie Pittelkowa j, Leonid Tiokhink l, Vincent Traagg, Olmo Robin van den Akkerb j, Anna van 't Veerm, Eric‐Jan Wagenmakerse
- aDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Heymans Building, room 239, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands
- bTilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
- cLondon School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, UK
- dUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia
- eUniversity of Amsterdam, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- fDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
- gCentre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands
- hUniversity of Zurich, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland
- iSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK
- jQUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité—Universitätsmedizin, 10178 Berlin, Germany
- kIG&
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings.