Scientific Utopia

Nosek, Brian A.; Spies, Jeffrey R.; Motyl, Matt

doi:10.1177/1745691612459058

Cited by 1,041 publications

(434 citation statements)

References 153 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

418

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, success in grant applications and career progression relies heavily on publications ( van Dijk et al , 2014). This can lead to hyper-competition for “high-impact” publications and in some recent cases, a lack of truth in publishing ( Nosek et al , 2012; Sovacool, 2008). Competition also encourages scientists to present data in the most optimistic light, and to include only data that lead to a clean and understandable conclusion.…”

Section: Genesis Of the Future Of Research Symposiummentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The landscape of scientific research and funding is in flux and affected by tight budgets, evolving models of both publishing and evaluation, and questions about training and workforce stability. As future leaders, junior scientists are uniquely poised to shape the culture and practice of science in response to these challenges. A group of postdocs in the Boston area who are invested in improving the scientific endeavor, planned a symposium held on October 2 nd and 3 rd, 2014, as a way to join the discussion about the future of US biomedical research. Here we present a report of the proceedings of participant-driven workshops and the organizers’ synthesis of the outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Genesis Of the Future Of Research Symposiummentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To increase our confidence in which findings are trustworthy, more direct or conceptual replications will be necessary (e.g. Nosek et al, 2012; Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). These replications will ultimately be essential in determining whether our and previous findings on reconsolidation are reliable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This emphasizes the importance of independent replications; an appeal that has been made repeatedly in recent years to ensure the self-correcting nature of psychological science (e.g. Asendorpf et al, 2013; Koole & Lakens, 2012; Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty, 2012; Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012; Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). In this spirit, we attempted to replicate Wichert et al’s (experiment 1, 2013a) findings using similar procedures, manipulation, measures, and population.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of episodic memories by novel learning: a failed replication study

Schie

Veen

Hout

et al. 2017

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: After reactivation, memories can become unstable and sensitive to modification before they are restored into long-term memory. Using behavioural manipulations, reactivated memories may be disrupted via the mechanism of interference (i.e. novel learning). In a laboratory study, Wichert et al. (2013a) showed that new learning after reactivation changed episodic memory, while new learning alone or reactivation alone did not. Objective: Given the potential clinical application of such a procedure in trauma-focused psychological treatments, such as CBT or EMDR, the aim of this study was to replicate Wichert et al. Method: On Day 1, participants (N = 96) viewed and recalled a series of emotional and non-emotional pictures. Then, participants were randomized to one of four groups. One week later, on Day 8, Group 1 reactivated the previously learned pictures and learned new pictures. To control for specific effects of reactivation or new learning, Group 2 only reactivated the previously learned pictures, and Group 3 only learned new pictures. Group 4 received no reactivation and no new learning. On Day 9, all groups indicated for each picture out of a series whether they had seen it on Day 1. Results: The data were analysed using Bayesian hypothesis testing, which allows for quantifying the evidence in favour of the alternative and the null hypothesis. In general, results showed that Group 1 recognized fewer pictures from Day 1 compared to Groups 2 and 4 on Day 9. However, the expected difference between new learning following reactivation (i.e. Group 1) and new learning alone (i.e. Group 3) was not substantially supported by the data for any of our dependent measures. Conclusions: We replicated some of the findings by Wichert et al., but did not find substantial support for the critical difference between new learning following reactivation and new learning alone.

show abstract

“…For example, Hubbard (2016) provided a review of 900 studies, many of which deal with non-compliance with science in published research. Nosek and Bar-Anan (2012) and Nosek, Spies and Motyl (2012) provided reviews that, between them, covered 250 publications. Munafo, et al (2017) provided 85 references, of which 71 were published since 2006; the paper also noted that over 2,000 such papers are published each year now.…”

Section: Operational Guidelines For Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Armstrong

Green

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem: The scientific method is unrivalled as a basis for generating useful knowledge, yet research papers published in management, economics, and other social sciences fields often ignore scientific principles. What, then, can be done to increase the publication of useful scientific papers?Methods: Evidence on researchers' compliance with scientific principles was examined. Guidelines aimed at reducing violations were then derived from established definitions of the scientific method. Findings:Violations of the principles of science are encouraged by: (a) funding for advocacy research; (b) regulations that limit what research is permitted, how it must be designed, and what must be reported; (c) political suppression of scientists' speech; (d) universities' use of invalid criteria to evaluate research-such as grant money and counting of publications without regard to usefulness; (e) journals' use of invalid criteria for deciding which papers to publish-such as the use of statistical significance tests. Solutions:We created a checklist of 24 evidence-based operational guidelines to help researchers comply with scientific principles (valid inputs). Based on the definition of science, we then developed a checklist of seven criteria to evaluate whether a research paper provides useful scientific findings (valuable outputs). That checklist can be used by researchers, funders, courts, legislators, regulators, employers, reviewers, and journals.Originality: This paper provides the first comprehensive evidence-based checklists of operational guidelines for conducting scientific research and for evaluating the scientific quality and usefulness of research efforts.Usefulness: Journals could increase the publication of useful papers by including a section committed to publishing all relevant and useful papers that comply with science. By using the Criteria for Useful Science checklist, those who support science could more effectively evaluate the contributions of scientists. AbstractProblem: The scientific method is unrivalled as a basis for generating useful knowledge, yet research papers published in management, economics, and other social sciences fields often ignore scientific principles. What, then, can be done to increase the publication of useful scientific papers?Methods: Evidence on researchers' compliance with scientific principles was examined. Guidelines aimed at reducing violations were then derived from established definitions of the scientific method.Findings: Violations of the principles of science are encouraged by: (a) funding for advocacy research; (b) regulations that limit what research is permitted, how it must be designed, and what must be reported; (c) political suppression of scientists' speech; (d) universities' use of invalid criteria to evaluate research-such as grant money and counting of publications without regard to usefulness; (e) journals' use of invalid criteria for deciding which papers to publish-such as the use of statistical significance tests.Solutions: We created a chec...

show abstract

Scientific Utopia

Cited by 1,041 publications

References 153 publications

Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists

Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists

Modification of episodic memories by novel learning: a failed replication study

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About