Suppr超能文献

追求透明且可信的研究:行为生态学家实用指南

Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists.

作者信息

Ihle Malika, Winney Isabel S, Krystalli Anna, Croucher Michael

机构信息

Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Alfred Denny Building, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Eberhard-Gwinner-Strasse, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany.

出版信息

Behav Ecol. 2017 Mar-Apr;28(2):348-354. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arx003. Epub 2017 Mar 14.

Abstract

Science is meant to be the systematic and objective study of the world but evidence suggests that scientific practices are sometimes falling short of this expectation. In this invited idea, we argue that any failure to conduct research according to a documented plan (lack of ) and/or any failure to ensure that reconducting the same project would provide the same finding (lack of ), will result in a low probability of independent studies reaching the same outcome (lack of ). After outlining the challenges facing behavioral ecology and science more broadly and incorporating advice from international organizations such as the Center for Open Science (COS), we present clear guidelines and tutorials on what we think open practices represent for behavioral ecologists. In addition, we indicate some of the currently most appropriate and freely available tools for adopting these practices. Finally, we suggest that all journals in our field, such as Behavioral Ecology, give additional weight to transparent studies and therefore provide greater incentives to align our scientific practices to our scientific values. Overall, we argue that producing demonstrably credible science is now fully achievable for the benefit of each researcher individually and for our community as a whole.

摘要

科学旨在对世界进行系统且客观的研究,但有证据表明,科学实践有时并未达到这一期望。在这篇特邀观点文章中,我们认为,任何未按照记录在案的计划进行研究(缺乏 )和/或任何未能确保重新开展同一项目会得出相同结果(缺乏 )的情况,都将导致独立研究得出相同结果的可能性较低(缺乏 )。在更广泛地概述行为生态学和科学面临的挑战,并纳入诸如开放科学中心(COS)等国际组织的建议之后,我们针对开放实践对行为生态学家意味着什么给出了明确的指导方针和教程。此外,我们指出了目前采用这些实践的一些最适用且免费的工具。最后,我们建议我们领域的所有期刊,如《行为生态学》,更加重视透明的研究,从而提供更大的激励,使我们的科学实践与科学价值观保持一致。总体而言,我们认为,为了每位研究人员个人以及我们整个群体的利益,现在完全有可能产出明显可信的科学成果。

相似文献

4
Open Science Badges in the Journal of Neurochemistry.开放科学徽章在神经化学杂志上。
J Neurochem. 2018 Oct;147(2):132-136. doi: 10.1111/jnc.14536. Epub 2018 Aug 1.
6
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

5
Impact of dominance rank specification in dyadic interaction models.在对偶相互作用模型中,支配等级规范的影响。
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0277130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277130. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Good enough practices in scientific computing.科学计算中的良好实践。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Jun 22;13(6):e1005510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510. eCollection 2017 Jun.
2
Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings - a practical guide.检测和避免可能的假阳性发现——实用指南。
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 Nov;92(4):1941-1968. doi: 10.1111/brv.12315. Epub 2016 Nov 23.
3
The natural selection of bad science.劣质科学的自然选择。
R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Sep 21;3(9):160384. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160384. eCollection 2016 Sep.
4
Fraud Not a Primary Cause of Irreproducible Results: A Reply to Clark et al.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Dec;31(12):900. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.004. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
8
Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.科学家的声誉建立在做对事情上,而非一贯正确。
PLoS Biol. 2016 May 12;14(5):e1002460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460. eCollection 2016 May.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验