首页> 外文期刊>Animals >The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)
【24h】

The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)

机译:当代科学的薄弱环节(以及如何解决)

获取原文
       

摘要

In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers?¢???? tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.
机译:在这篇评论中,作者讨论了当代科学中的几个弱点,包括科学不端行为,事后假设(HARKing)问题,结果转换,在提出研究问题和假设时的理论膨胀,对文学的选择性阅读,选择性引用以前的结果,不当的盲法和其他设计失败,p-hacking或研究人员?倾向于以多种不同方式分析数据以找到积极的(通常是重要的)结果,结果报告中的错误和偏见以及出版偏见。作者提供了一些经验结果,这些问题突出了降低包括动物福利研究在内的科学文献中报告结果的可信度的问题。基于以下观点讨论了这些偏见的某些根本原因:研究人员仅是人类,因此无法幸免于确认偏见,事后偏见和轻微的道德违背。作者讨论了以下形式的解决方案:提高透明度,共享数据和材料,(出版后)同行评审,预注册,注册报告,改进的培训,报告指南,复制,处理出版偏见,替代推理技术,功能,以及其他统计工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号