Ask a scientist how science works and they’ll probably describe it to you as an iterative, self-correcting process. Researchers publish a study, and then, ideally, future work either affirms the results of that study or corrects them. That way, scientists in a field continue to work off of and refine the best available information.
The best way to determine whether the results of a particular study are valid is to replicate the original study, changing the methods as necessary to make sure the replication study uses the best process to answer the research question at hand.
Only a small proportion of published studies are replicated, though, and often attempts to replicate a study do not affirm the original’s results, leading to what’s called the “replication crisis” in a number of fields.
Amanda Montoya, a UCLA psychologist and an expert on the science that goes into doing science, describes the replication process in detail and explains why researchers can face challenges while planning and conducting their replication study, as well as when trying to get it published. “Active discussion of the replicability crisis, in both scientific and political spaces, suggests to many researchers that there is room for growth,” she writes.
Also in this week’s science news:
If there’s a subject you’d like our team of science editors to investigate, please reply to this email.
|