University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Soc Stud Sci. 2021 Aug;51(4):583-605. doi: 10.1177/03063127211005551. Epub 2021 Mar 25.
A series of failed replications and frauds have raised questions regarding self-correction in science. Metascientific activists have advocated policies that incentivize replications and make them more diagnostically potent. We argue that current debates, as well as research in science and technology studies, have paid little heed to a key dimension of replication practice. Although it sometimes serves a diagnostic function, replication is commonly motivated by a practical desire to extend research interests. The resulting replication, which we label 'integrative', is characterized by a pragmatic flexibility toward protocols. The goal is to appropriate what is useful, not test for truth. Within many experimental cultures, however, integrative replications can produce replications of ambiguous diagnostic power. Based on interviews with 60 members of the Board of Reviewing Editors for the journal , we show how the interplay between the diagnostic and integrative motives for replication differs between fields and produces different cultures of replication. We offer six theses that aim to put science and technology studies and science activism into dialog to show why effective reforms will need to confront issues of disciplinary difference.
一系列失败的复制和欺诈行为引发了人们对科学自我纠错能力的质疑。元科学活动家们提倡采取一些激励复制行为并使其更具诊断效力的政策。我们认为，当前的辩论以及科学和技术研究领域都没有充分关注到复制实践的一个关键维度。尽管复制有时具有诊断功能，但它通常是出于将研究兴趣扩展的实际愿望而进行的。我们将这种复制称为“整合性”，其特点是对协议具有务实的灵活性。其目标是利用有用的东西，而不是为了检验真理。然而，在许多实验文化中，整合性复制可能会产生具有模糊诊断能力的复制。基于对该期刊评审编辑委员会的 60 名成员的采访，我们展示了复制的诊断和整合动机如何因领域而异，从而产生不同的复制文化。我们提出了六个论题，旨在使科学和技术研究以及科学行动主义进行对话，以展示为什么有效的改革将需要解决学科差异的问题。
