Dataset Information

Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.

ABSTRACT: Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications "succeed" or "fail," they could have reputational consequences for the claim's originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers' belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.

SUBMITTER: Ebersole CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4865149 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.

Ebersole Charles R CR Axt Jordan R JR Nosek Brian A BA

PLoS biology 20160512 5

Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications "succeed" or "fail," they could have reputational consequences for the claim's originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientis ...[more]

PMID: 27171138

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe study focuses on the orientation to being recorded in therapy sessions, emphasizing that these practices adapt to specific circumstances and influence subsequent actions. The study suggests a way to deal with the insolubility of the "observer paradox": to accept that observation has an impact on the observed, but that the recorder is not necessarily a negative determinant. Furthermore, the study builds on the idea that participants' orientations to the recorder can be seen as actions.MethodsThe data included in this study were collected from four psychodynamic therapies. A total of 472 sessions were searched for orientation to be recorded. Twenty-three passages were found and transcribed according to GAT2. Of the 23 transcripts, six excerpts have been analyzed as part of this article. The analysis of this study was done through Conversation Analysis.ResultsThe study explores how participants use the orientation to be recorded to initiate or alter actions within conversations, which can help achieve therapeutic goals, but can also hinder the emergence of a shared attentional space as the potential to disrupt the therapist-patient relationship. The study identifies both affiliative and disaffiliative practices, noting that managing orientation to be recorded in a retrospective design consistently leads to disruptive effects. Moreover, it highlights the difference between seeking epistemic authority ("being right") and managing recording situations ("getting it right") in therapeutic interactions as a means of initiating patients' self-exploration.DiscussionThe integration of recordings into therapeutic studies faces challenges, but it's important to acknowledge positive and negative effects. Participants' awareness of recording technologies prompts the need for a theory of observation in therapeutic interactions that allows therapists to visualize intuitive practices, incorporate active contributions, counteract interpretive filtering effects, facilitate expert exchange, ensure quality assurance, and enhance the comprehensibility of therapeutic processes. These aspects outline significant variables that provide a starting point for therapists using recordings in therapeutic interactions.

Project description:BackgroundAt the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance was needed more than ever to direct frontline healthcare and national containment strategies. Rigorous guidance based on robust research was compromised by the emergence of the pandemic and the urgency of need for guidance. Rather than aiming to "get guidance right", guidance developers needed to "get guidance right now".AimTo examine how guidance developers have responded to the need for credible guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted among guidance developers. A web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used to examine the most pertinent challenges in developing COVID-19 guidance, strategies used to address these, and perspectives on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on future guidance development.ResultsThe survey was completed by 46 guidance developers. Survey findings showed that conventional methods of guidance development were largely unsuited for COVID-19 guidance, with 80% (n = 37) of respondents resorting to other methods. From the survey and five follow-up interviews, two themes were identified to bolster the credibility of guidance in a setting of extreme uncertainty: (1) strengthening end-user involvement and (2) conjoining evidence review and recommendation formulation. 70% (n = 32) of survey respondents foresaw possible changes in future guidance production, most notably shortening development time, by reconsidering how to balance between rigour and speed for different types of questions.Conclusion"Getting guidance right" and "getting guidance right now" are not opposites, rather uncertainties are always part of guidance development and require guidance developers to balance scientific robustness with usability, acceptability, adequacy and contingency. This crisis points to the need to acknowledge uncertainties of scientific evidence more explicitly and points to mechanisms to live with such uncertainty, thus extending guidance development methods and processes more widely.

Dataset Information

Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.

Publications

Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets