Search

Replication and the reported crises impacting many fields of research have become a focal point for the sciences. This has led to reforms in publishing, methodological design and reporting, and increased numbers of experimental replications coordinated across many laboratories. While replication is rightly considered an indispensable tool of science, financial resources and researchers' time are quite limited. In this perspective, weexamine different values and attitudes that scientists can consider when deciding whether to replicate a finding and how. We offer a conceptual framework for assessing the usefulness of various replication tools, such as preregistration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For most researchers, academic publishing serves two goals that are often misaligned--knowledge dissemination and establishing scientific credentials. While both goals can encourage research with significant depth and scope, the latter can also pressure scholars to maximize publication metrics. Commercial publishing companies have capitalized on the centrality of publishing to the scientific enterprises of knowledge dissemination and academic recognition to extract large profits from academia by leveraging unpaid services from reviewers, creating financial barriers to research dissemination, and imposing substantial fees for open access. We present a set of perspectives exploring alternative models for communicating and disseminating scientific research. Acknowledging that the success of new publishing models depends on their impact on existing approaches for assigning academic credit that often prioritize prestigious publications and metrics such as citations and impact factors, we also provide various viewpoints on reforming academic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following testing in clinical trials, the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 has been authorized for use in parts of the world, including the USA and Europe. Early authorizations were largely based on results from two clinical trials. A third study published by Wang et al. was underpowered and deemed inconclusive. Although regulators have shown an interest in interpreting the Wang et al. study, under a frequentist framework it is difficult to determine if the non-significant finding was caused by a lack of power or by the absence of an effect. Bayesian hypothesis testing does allow for quantification of evidence in favor of the absence of an effect. Findings: Results of our Bayesian reanalysis of the three trials show ambiguous evidence for the primary outcome of clinical improvement and moderate evidence against the secondary outcome of decreased mortality rate. Additional analyses of three studies published after initial marketing approval support these findings. Conclusions: We recommend that regulatory bodies take all available evidence into account for endorsement decisions. A Bayesian approach can be beneficial, in particular in case of statistically non-significant results. This is especially pressing when limited clinical efficacy data is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Priming is arguably one of the key phenomena in contemporary social psychology. Recent retractions and failed replication attempts have led to a division in the field between proponents and skeptics and have reinforced the importance of confirming certain priming effects through replication. In this study, we describe the results of 2 preregistered replication attempts of 1 experiment by Förster and Denzler (2012). In both experiments, participants first processed letters either globally or locally, then were tested using a typicality rating task. Bayes factor hypothesis tests were conducted for both experiments: Experiment 1 (N = 100) yielded an indecisive Bayes factor of 1.38, indicating that the in-lab data are 1.38 times more likely to have occurred under the null hypothesis than under the alternative. Experiment 2 (N = 908) yielded a Bayes factor of 10.84, indicating strong support for the null hypothesis that global priming does not affect participants' mean typicality ratings. The failure to replicate this priming effect challenges existing support for the GLOMOsys model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines., Competing Interests: We declare we have no competing interests., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication., (© 2023 The Authors.)