|
|
|
|
|
|
by tareqak
2456 days ago
|
|
|
Why not have a general checklist with a minimum set of requirements for scientific papers that are relevant across all branches of science? The people putting their names on the paper would have to show that they followed everything or give reasons for skipping a step. The receiving journals would have their editors re-check the checklist. As part of reporting the results of the paper, the level of completeness of the checklist would also be in the report. Yes, the checklist would not be all-encompassing or foolproof, and there would likely be revisions to the checklist, and maybe even domain-specific variants, but it would be an extra level caution that the media could report or choose to ignore at their will. Over time, the apparent level of scientific rigour would improve. No, it’s not bulletproof and there will be people who will try to meet the checklist and still present erroneous conclusions as reliable science, but it would be an improvement in the status quo for a layperson who is aware and values said checklist. |
|
|
On the whole though, most of the things you should and should not do are so domain specific its very hard to give much useful advice at the level of "all science." Right now this seems to work because researchers are so eager to anticipate objections and and avoid unnecessary arguments during peer review they stick slavishly stick to the same methods used by seminal papers in their field, and this has the same effect as running down a checklist.
There probably is a case to be made for using an actual checklist, though[5].
[1]: http://www.consort-statement.org/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments#Fisher's...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_Tasting_Tea
[4]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27311742-the-seven-pilla...
[5]: http://atulgawande.com/book/the-checklist-manifesto/