Perspectives on Scientific Error

Abstract

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings are false or do not replicate. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on this scientific error, focusing both on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. Talking points are organised along four main themes: methodological reform, statistical reform, publishing reform, and institutional reform. For each of these four themes, we discuss the current state of affairs, existing knowledge gaps, and opportunities for future reform. The resulting agenda should provide a useful resource for ushering in an era that is marked by a lower prevalence of scientific error.

Who Should Be Accountable for Scientific Accountability?

“…We suggest changing the reward systems that are in place by focusing less on the conventional metrics of academic success, such as grant dollars and publications in high-impact journals, and focusing more on rewarding scientific rigor, team science efforts, societal relevance of research, and mentorship and leadership skills. 4 Institutions should work with their faculty members in an expedited fashion to address any reports of data irregularity rather than ignoring the problem or pretending it does not exist. Governmental funding agencies should provide financial support for dedicated research integrity agencies that can investigate claims of fraud in an unbiased manner in real time, rather than depending on whistleblowers or relying on journals and academic institutions to uncover these issues, which can often take years to process because of the myriad of potential legal entanglements.…”

“…We suggest changing the reward systems that are in place by focusing less on the conventional metrics of academic success, such as grant dollars and publications in high-impact journals, and focusing more on rewarding scientific rigor, team science efforts, societal relevance of research, and mentorship and leadership skills. 4 …”