Johnson Bankole, Addolorato Giovanni, Lesch Otto, Liu Lei, Rodd Zachary A
Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Charlottesville, VA, United States.
Internal Medicine and Alcohol Related Disease Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Columbus-Gemelli Hospital, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Oct 4;14:1271229. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1271229. eCollection 2023.
A core principle in the pursuit of scientific knowledge is that science is self-correcting and that important results should be replicable. Hypotheses need to be reinforced, adjusted, or rejected when novel results are obtained. Replication of results confirms hypotheses and enhances their integration into scientific practice. In contrast, publication of substantiated and replicated negative findings (i.e., non-significant or opposite findings) can be the basis to reject erroneous hypotheses or develop alternative strategies for investigation. Replication is a problem in all research fields. The Psychology Reproductivity Project reported that only 36% of 'highly influential' published research in highly ranked journals were reproduced. Similar to positive data, negative data can be flawed. Errors in a negative data set can be based on methodology, statistics, conceptual defects, and flawed peer review. The peer review process has received progressive scrutiny. A large-scale review of the peer review process of manuscripts submitted to the British Medical Journal group indicated that the process could be characterized as inconsistent, inaccurate, and biased. Further analysis indicated that the peer process is easily manipulated, indicative of a failed system, is a major factor behind the lack of replication in science (acceptance of flawed manuscripts), suppresses opposing scientific evidence and views, and causes gaps in and lack of growth of science. Complicating the integrity of scientific publication is the role of Editors/Researchers. Ethical guidelines exist for major publishing houses about editorial ethics, behavior, and practice.
追求科学知识的一个核心原则是，科学具有自我修正能力，重要的研究结果应该是可重复验证的。当获得新的研究结果时，假设需要得到强化、调整或摒弃。结果的重复验证能够证实假设，并促进其融入科学实践。相比之下，公布经过证实且可重复验证的阴性结果（即无显著意义或相反的结果）可以成为摒弃错误假设或制定替代研究策略的依据。重复验证在所有研究领域都是一个问题。心理学可重复性项目报告称，在高排名期刊上发表的“极具影响力”的研究中，只有36%能够被重复验证。与阳性数据类似，阴性数据也可能存在缺陷。阴性数据集中的错误可能基于方法学、统计学、概念缺陷以及有缺陷的同行评审。同行评审过程受到了越来越多的审视。一项对提交给《英国医学杂志》集团的稿件同行评审过程的大规模审查表明，该过程具有不一致、不准确和有偏见的特点。进一步分析表明，同行评审过程很容易被操纵，这表明该系统存在缺陷，是科学研究中缺乏可重复性（接受有缺陷的稿件）的一个主要因素，它压制了相反的科学证据和观点，导致了科学发展的差距和停滞。编辑/研究人员的角色使科学出版的完整性变得更加复杂。主要出版社针对编辑道德、行为和实践制定了道德准则。
