行为科学可复制性评估的跨学科经验和建议。

Q2 Social Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1017/pls.2023.28
Mitch Brown, Donald F Sacco
{"title":"行为科学可复制性评估的跨学科经验和建议。","authors":"Mitch Brown, Donald F Sacco","doi":"10.1017/pls.2023.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the scientific community becomes aware of low replicability rates in the extant literature, peer-reviewed journals have begun implementing initiatives with the goal of improving replicability. Such initiatives center around various rules to which authors must adhere to demonstrate their engagement in best practices. Preliminary evidence in the psychological science literature demonstrates a degree of efficacy in these initiatives. With such efficacy in place, it would be advantageous for other fields of behavioral sciences to adopt similar measures. This letter provides a discussion on lessons learned from psychological science while similarly addressing the unique challenges of other sciences to adopt measures that would be most appropriate for their field. We offer broad considerations for peer-reviewed journals in their implementation of specific policies and recommend that governing bodies of science prioritize the funding of research that addresses these measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"235-238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interdisciplinary lessons and recommendations for the evaluation of replicability in behavioral sciences.\",\"authors\":\"Mitch Brown, Donald F Sacco\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/pls.2023.28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As the scientific community becomes aware of low replicability rates in the extant literature, peer-reviewed journals have begun implementing initiatives with the goal of improving replicability. Such initiatives center around various rules to which authors must adhere to demonstrate their engagement in best practices. Preliminary evidence in the psychological science literature demonstrates a degree of efficacy in these initiatives. With such efficacy in place, it would be advantageous for other fields of behavioral sciences to adopt similar measures. This letter provides a discussion on lessons learned from psychological science while similarly addressing the unique challenges of other sciences to adopt measures that would be most appropriate for their field. We offer broad considerations for peer-reviewed journals in their implementation of specific policies and recommend that governing bodies of science prioritize the funding of research that addresses these measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics and the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"235-238\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics and the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.28\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着科学界意识到现存文献的可复制率较低,同行评审期刊已开始实施旨在提高可复制性的措施。这些措施围绕着作者必须遵守的各种规则,以证明他们参与了最佳实践。心理科学文献中的初步证据表明,这些措施在一定程度上是有效的。有了这样的成效,其他行为科学领域采取类似的措施将是有利的。本信讨论了从心理科学中汲取的经验教训,同时也探讨了其他科学在采用最适合其领域的措施时所面临的独特挑战。我们为同行评审期刊实施具体政策提供了广泛的考虑因素,并建议科学管理机构优先资助针对这些措施的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interdisciplinary lessons and recommendations for the evaluation of replicability in behavioral sciences.

As the scientific community becomes aware of low replicability rates in the extant literature, peer-reviewed journals have begun implementing initiatives with the goal of improving replicability. Such initiatives center around various rules to which authors must adhere to demonstrate their engagement in best practices. Preliminary evidence in the psychological science literature demonstrates a degree of efficacy in these initiatives. With such efficacy in place, it would be advantageous for other fields of behavioral sciences to adopt similar measures. This letter provides a discussion on lessons learned from psychological science while similarly addressing the unique challenges of other sciences to adopt measures that would be most appropriate for their field. We offer broad considerations for peer-reviewed journals in their implementation of specific policies and recommend that governing bodies of science prioritize the funding of research that addresses these measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
期刊最新文献
Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of biomedical research. BWC confidence-building measures: Increasing BWC assurance through transparency and information sharing. A leader I can(not) trust: understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism. Evolutionary biology as a frontier for research on misinformation. Moral equality and reprogenetic autonomy in the genomic era.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1