A new report released [May 2019] by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is weighing in on a contentious debate within the science world: the idea that scientific research is fundamentally flawed, rife with published findings that often can’t be reproduced or replicated by other scientists, otherwise known as the replication and reproducibility crisis.
Common issues highlighted by these scientists have included fraudulent, poorly done, or overhyped studies, with embellished findings based on small sample sizes.
The most glaring fallout from these issues has been that many of the most influential or flashy findings in science, particularly in psychology, fail to be reproduced (meaning that other researchers can’t get the same findings by crunching the same raw data obtained by the original study) or replicated (meaning that other researchers, when recreating the design of the original study, don’t get similar results).
…[The report] offers a way forward for scientists, policy makers, and even the media, providing guidelines for better data transparency and rigor in original studies; criteria for when these studies might merit a reproduction or replication; and recommendations for how journalists should cover and report on these studies.
Read full, original post: Is Science Broken? Major New Report Outlines Problems in Research