AI Article Synopsis
- - Replication in science is crucial for enhancing the precision and credibility of scientific findings, but it can lead to reputational risks for those who originally conducted the research.
- - Surveys of different groups (adults, undergraduates, and researchers) reveal that people's judgments about scientists rely more on their methods and responses to replication results rather than the accuracy of their initial findings.
- - The findings suggest a preference for scientists who produce reliable but less exciting results over those who offer innovative but uncertain outcomes, highlighting a need to balance rewards for both verification and creativity in the scientific community.
Article Abstract
Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications "succeed" or "fail," they could have reputational consequences for the claim's originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers' belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865149 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!