Hoekstra Rink, Vazire Simine
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Dec;5(12):1602-1607. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01203-8. Epub 2021 Oct 28.
The replication crisis in the social, behavioural and life sciences has spurred a reform movement aimed at increasing the credibility of scientific studies. Many of these credibility-enhancing reforms focus, appropriately, on specific research and publication practices. A less often mentioned aspect of credibility is the need for intellectual humility or being transparent about and owning the limitations of our work. Although intellectual humility is presented as a widely accepted scientific norm, we argue that current research practice does not incentivize intellectual humility. We provide a set of recommendations on how to increase intellectual humility in research articles and highlight the central role peer reviewers can play in incentivizing authors to foreground the flaws and uncertainty in their work, thus enabling full and transparent evaluation of the validity of research.
社会、行为和生命科学领域的复制危机引发了一场旨在提高科学研究可信度的改革运动。这些增强可信度的改革措施很多都恰当地聚焦于具体的研究和出版实践。可信度中一个较少被提及的方面是需要保持学术谦逊,或者说要对我们工作的局限性保持透明并承认这些局限性。尽管学术谦逊被视为一项广泛接受的科学规范,但我们认为当前的研究实践并未激励学术谦逊。我们就如何在研究文章中提高学术谦逊提出了一系列建议,并强调同行评审员在激励作者突出其工作中的缺陷和不确定性方面可以发挥的核心作用,从而能够对研究的有效性进行全面和透明的评估。