Ready scientific manuscripts that come from Paper mills (Manuscript factories) have caused a disadvantage in the Academy. It weakened the quality of the articles and jeopardized their credibility. Likewise, he led scientists to it Harmful practices Like splitting articles into smaller and incomplete installments to maintain a certain publication rate. But there is one consequence that affects the basis of scientific production: a crisis Repeatability.
The term, also known as reproducibility or repetition, refers to the ability to repeat an experiment in different situations, with different subjects and researchers. This is to verify the validity of the results of the first experiment and to ensure its validity.
The reason pre-prepared scientific articles threaten the reproducibility of studies, research papers and experiments is that they are not conducted within an operational framework for knowledge production, but rather are intended to create products for academics trying to fill a share of publication. Data from prof Paper mill It can be a product of plagiarism, be incomplete, altered, tampered with, or biased with the intent to support the thesis of the person requesting the work.
Science without evidence
Can we speak of correct knowledge when verification is disrupted as a step of the scientific method? This question has puzzled academics for at least a decade of the troubling reality of a science without reliable methods. Scientific production had difficulty verifying the authenticity of ready-made manuscripts before they reached their climax.
Alvaro de Menard, academic researcher in social sciences and participant in the Replication Markets Project in charge of the Agency for Research and Advance Defense Projects (Darpa It offers an accurate but daunting perspective regarding A case of redundancy in the social sciences. De Menard argues that the processes leading to unreliable results are routine, well understood within the academic community, predictable and easy to avoid, yet the accuracy of scientific research has not improved.
Talk about these aspects of scientific production is widely discussed, but it has not yet generated a more rigorous production and diffusion structure, which would facilitate the practice of verification. The infallible science continues to be published in scientific journals.
The peer review role
The academic community is very confident of the last instance of verification before publishing an article. Peer review has been a bulwark for the defense of the technical quality of research work and the ethical system on which the credibility of the knowledge produced rests. However, they were not fully effective in separating reproducible from non-reproducible content.
It would be easy to think that academic observers would have the ability to carry out this work without problem, but study Northwestern University, In Evanston Illinois, find out otherwise. Research by professors Yang Yang, Wu Youyu, and Brian Uzi found that there was no relationship between the study’s repeatability and publication and the number of times it was cited. According to the authors, non-error articles circulate as much as verifiable articles.
Toughness just isn’t enough
Most of the conversations around the replicability crisis revolve around protocols. It is mainly considered What measures should be taken To control the multiplication of items in a hurry, pre-made, or with a peer review process that failed to reveal susceptibility to error.
In the face of this priority, one of the key aspects of ensuring reproducibility remains neglected: communication. The odds of repeating a given experience drop dramatically when you work with vague descriptions or instructions that are difficult to understand, and the problem becomes more serious when trying to reproduce an experience written in another language.
With this problem in mind, the National Academies Press of the United States published A. A series of recommendations To facilitate reading of research manuscripts and experiments. The agency recommends that researchers include a clear description of how they achieved their results. Reports should include details of the appropriate type of investigation, which should include:
A complete and brief description of all the methods, tools, materials, procedures, measurements, and other variables used in the study.
A clear breakdown of data analysis and decisions to exclude specific data and exclude others.
For results that are based on statistical inference. An explanation of the corresponding analytical decisions, when those decisions were made and whether the study to be conducted was for exploratory or confirmatory purposes.
A discussion of general limitations, such as the methodological aspects that the authors consider can be changed without changing the outcome, and which must remain constant.
Report on the accuracy of the statistics used.
A discussion of the uncertainty of measurements, results, and conclusions.
Despite the complex outlook, some academics expect A. Improvement period As a result of the low reproduction problem, however, it is necessary to do the work and cover the areas of opportunity that this problem presents. Are you an academic? Have you encountered non-replicable studies? What are your impressions? What would you suggest to alleviate this situation within the academy? Tell us in the comments.