Franca 2019 Learn Pub: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Iglesias-Gonzalez Javier moved page Franca 2019 to Franca 2019 Learn Pub) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 22:46, 25 January 2021
| Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: In tangling the knot. Learn Pub 32:1-3. |
Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Learn Pub
Abstract: • Although there is no unique scientific method, there are general requirements that reports of empirical evidence must fulfil in order to be useful. • Enforcing general requirements can improve the quality of published studies without promoting a narrowly defined scientific method that would limit the scope of science. • The reproducibility movement advises against using novelty as the main requirement for publication and promotes the enforcement of transparent reporting and rigorous peer review. • Novelty is important for science but must not be the sole requirement for publication decisions as this can lead to publication bias and seriously distort the scientific literature. • While the scientific community remains responsible for thoroughly evaluating published papers, strengthening the peer review process will help to improve transparency and replicability.
• Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Labels:
MitoFit 2021 PT
