Difference between revisions of "Franca 2019 Learn Pub"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: In tangling the knot. Learn Pub 32:1-3. | |title=Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: In tangling the knot. Learn Pub 32:1-3. | ||
|info=[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/leap.1250?af=R | |info=[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/leap.1250?af=R Wiley Online Library] | ||
|authors=Franca TFA, Monserrat JM | |authors=Franca TFA, Monserrat JM | ||
|year=2019 | |year=2019 | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 25 January 2021
| Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: In tangling the knot. Learn Pub 32:1-3. |
Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Learn Pub
Abstract: • Although there is no unique scientific method, there are general requirements that reports of empirical evidence must fulfil in order to be useful. • Enforcing general requirements can improve the quality of published studies without promoting a narrowly defined scientific method that would limit the scope of science. • The reproducibility movement advises against using novelty as the main requirement for publication and promotes the enforcement of transparent reporting and rigorous peer review. • Novelty is important for science but must not be the sole requirement for publication decisions as this can lead to publication bias and seriously distort the scientific literature. • While the scientific community remains responsible for thoroughly evaluating published papers, strengthening the peer review process will help to improve transparency and replicability.
• Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Labels:
MitoFit 2021 PT
