Rescuing Biomedical Research

Creative solutions to sustain biomedical research

  • Home
  • The Problem
  • RBR Actions
    • Actions taken
    • Work in progress
  • Resources
    • Articles
    • Books and Talks
    • Reports and Research Articles
    • Videos
    • Websites
  • About
    • Steering Committee Bios
    • Contact Us
    • In the Media
    • Site Map
  • Blog
You are here: Home / Actions Proposed / Errors in Science / Comments by Andrea Repetto

Comments by Andrea Repetto

November 3, 2016 By RBR Writing Program

Topic: Errors in Science
by Andrea Repetto

10/25/2016

Proposed Actions

1) PUBLISH negative results!
2) Don’t publish bad papers!
3) PUBLISH experiments that attempt to reproduce important results!
Experiments with positive and negative results both should be held to a high standard; one that is higher than the positive results papers are currently being held (no reproducibility for example).
If the hypercompetitive environment cools down, this would give highly skilled scientists the time to properly review papers. Reviewing papers should be formally built into the structure of being a scientist; professors expected to review at least one or two papers per year, for example.

Optional Comments on the Problem

I’m sure we are all aware of the publication bias, and I know there has been some attention paid to trying to fix this problem (more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). But this is the systematic destruction of one of the most basic tenets of science!!

Filed Under: Errors in Science

Get the RBR blog in your inbox!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

iBiology Videos: The Biomedical Workforce

  • See more videos >>

Most Recent Input

Click on a blue header below to see the full comment.

Comments by Andrea Repetto

Posted: November 3, 2016

Non-PhD level positions undervalued

Comments by Andrea Repetto

Posted: November 3, 2016

Reward negative results

Comments by Holly Hamilton

Posted: September 13, 2016

(1) The training model thus far is that of the medieval apprentice- a trainee is to become a clone of his/her supervisor. (2) Trainees are rarely permitted to conduct work not expressly assigned/approved by supervisor. (3) Training goals for postdocs at a national level are unspecified. (4) All postdocs are trained as if they will become academic research professors.

See all input >>

Upcoming Events

 
See upcoming events, or submit an event
to be listed >>

© 2021 Rescuing BioMedical Research · All Rights Reserved · About · Contact Us