ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shifting the Level of Selection in Science.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Impact of redefining statistical significance on P-hacking and false positive rates: An agent-based model.PloS one · 2024Article
- Releasing synthetic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): Guidelines and applied examples.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Perspectives on scientific error.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Cognitive Science Progresses Toward Interactive Frameworks.Topics in cognitive science · 2023Article
- Replication of the natural selection of bad science.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- The form of uncertainty affects selection for social learning.Evolutionary human sciences · 2023Article
- Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- The natural selection of good science.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Practical Methodological Reform Needs Good Theory.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021Article
- Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- [The contribution of Open Science to the quality of educational research].Zeitschrift fur bildungsforschung · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Correction · 2019-08-14Error by Journal/Publisher · Error in Text ·
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing scientists using exploitable metrics can lead to the degradation of research methods even without any strategic behaviour on the part of individuals, via 'the natural selection of bad science.' Institutional incentives to maximize metrics like publication quantity and impact drive this dynamic. Removing these incentives is necessary, but institutional change is slow. However, recent developments suggest possible solutions with more rapid onsets. These include what we call
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.