[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 600x600, cancer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14885549 No.14885549 [Reply] [Original]

>In late 2021, The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology examined 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012 and showed that among studies that provided sufficient information to be redone, the effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings. A survey on cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result.
https://www.cos.io/rpcb
>The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology was an 8-year effort to replicate experiments from high-impact cancer biology papers published between 2010 and 2012. The project was a collaboration between the Center of Open Science and Science Exchange with all papers published as part of this project available in a collection at eLife and all replication data, code, and digital materials for the project available in a collection on OSF.

What other medical research is likely to have been equally fraudulent?

>> No.14885930
File: 3.82 MB, 4272x2555, ModernAcademia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14885930

>>14885549

>> No.14886420

>>14885549
Let him who is without altering a few numbers cast the first stone, lmao
Everyone that conducts research does it
even when looks innocent
>fuck, is that a 3 or a 5
>results are more in line with a 5 and i'm not going to repeat that shit again

>fuck, this number looks off, it increases the standard deviation
>probably made some mistake, let me remove it

It could also be that they altered the procedure and didn't report on it or deliberetly manipulated the procedure and results to achieve certain results

There really needs to be a reform to incentivize reproducibility
I bet that the money lost in research paths that lead nowhere is like a magnitude higher that the money required to review the papers

There should be a score based system that gives credibility to the papers based on reproducibility both in quality and quantity, peer review is not enough
And incentivize it with recognition and money funded by public institutions
Contrarian theories to the establishment should also be rewarded

It's not even a difficult problem, that isn't the limiting factor