Reproducibility is the production of the same research results based on computer programs or raw data that researchers provide. Replicability is the related concept, meaning the method of independently achieving the nonidentical and similar effects, when have sampling differences, research protocols, and also the existence of data analysis. Replicability and reproducibility are among the primary scientific method beliefs. Concrete expressions of these ideas vary considerably depending on the field of study and the research discipline. From various experimental trials, the obtained values are regarded as commensurate if gotten according to similar reproducible procedures and empirical descriptions.
Aristotle dictum depicts the basic idea that there does not exist individual’s scientific knowledge; he associated the individual word with isolated occurrences. With such views, it means that all philosophy and sciences involve the concept formation and invocation of the required symbols in the language (Julia). Inadequate field statistics made Aristotle consider individual knowledge as unscientific because he could not appeal to statistical averaging by the individual. A given experimentally acquired value becomes reproducible if there exists a high degree of agreement between the conducted observations or measurements on the replica specimen in various location with different people; meaning that, only when the experiment has high precision is termed as reproducible. In science, however, a well-reproduced result can be confirmed using various experimental procedures and many different pieces of evidence as possible.
Reproducible research is the idea that the final product of research is the document with the primary laboratory information and all computation used to give those result such as data and codes among others, used to provide new results and create new work according to the research procedures. Psychology has renewed its internal concerns on irreproducible results. According to a study conducted in 2006 by 141 publication authors from the American psychology association (APA) empirical documents, 103 authors, which correspond to seventy-three percent withheld their data for more than six months. In another study conducted in 2015, researchers discovered that 246 out of 394, amounting to sixty-two percent contacted authors in APA journals failed to share their data. The suggestion was that researchers should publish their data and work, and then the dataset released as a demonstration.
In 2015, psychology departments were the first to post an open and registered empirical research of reproducibility where 270 researchers collaborated to replicate one hundred studies from three psychology journals, but only less than half of those replications were successful. Researchers has been using replicability to play around with people’s mind and achieve their targets by creating false positives. For instance, even when a study has a p-value above 0.05, they would perform p-hacking by playing around with data to push it below 0.05. An example to explain that menace was when American researched whether chocolate reduces weight, they had one control person that ate chocolate every day, another one that ate a little and the last did not eat it (Dorothy). The results were that the chocolate non-eaters reduced five pounds while there was no evidence of increase or reduction of weight to the control person. In reporting, the information was given the opposite just to play with people’s mind and have an opportunity to increase the sales of chocolates. Reproducibility then becomes essential in psychology to help in giving the exact information. In simpler terms, repeatability would help to improve credibility of psychological data that seems manipulated; written according to how the researcher had planned but not according to the data collected.
In 2016, a survey conducted to 1576 researchers, who took an online questionnaire on whether they have ever failed on reproducibility in research. The results were that more than seventy percent had tried but were unable to reproduce the results of another scientist’s experiment; meaning that, most of the information given by researchers were false and lacked transparency. Reproducibility shall be essential in restoring the lost trust of data in psychology.
Open science is the ability to make research data and dissemination available to all social levels or professionals. The field deals with practices such as public research and accessibility to reduce of communicating scientific knowledge (Veritasium). Open science started in 17th century with the arrival of academic journals when the demand for societies to access scientific knowledge became necessary for scientist groups, to share resources and collectively do their work. In the current world, people argue the extent of sharing this information. Conflict arises between the scientist desires of having access to shared resources and individual desires to profit when other partake their resources. Moreover, the status of resources and open access available to this promotion are likely to be different from one academic inquiry to the other.
In the contemporary world, academies have pressured researchers at learning institutions such as universities to engage in sharing research and practicing some technological developments. Some studies can generate revenue, and that is why many organizations withhold the information that would have led to scientific advancements. However, the most significant challenge of releasing such data is that some researchers may become lazy and instead of finding their data, they capitalize on the published information. In the end, a single error from the primary source would become replicated, and eventually, the world misled. However, it is crucial for the release of this information to institutions and other scientists in conducting peer-review and preventing false report, that the initial researcher may provide even before experimenting; meaning that validity and transparency of the collected data become guaranteed (Marcus et al. 180). Eventually, psychology shall not rely on one scientist who may be biased or manipulative to the data purposely to achieve the target.
Again, open science shall also make research more reproducible, which people have questioned for years and coined the reproducibility crisis. In the end, the false results released to play around with people’s mind shall reduce significantly. Psychology shall be found on truth and thus well-grounded to help in its advancement.
Most science projects focus on collecting and coordinating encyclopedic collections of substantial organized data and the accrete information from different researchers with various contribution and curation standards. Researchers organize other projects based on their completion and the extensive collaboration required. In ensuring that open science faces the credibility it deserves, scientists can apply several strategies such as models and computer resources.
Replacing the today's publishing model is one of the objectives of public science. The high cost of accessing literature gave rise to protests such as sharing papers without the consent of the publisher and also the value of knowledge. Several computer resources such as software support open sciences and include open science framework used to manage data, archive data as well as coordination of the team (SciShow). With software and other methods of increasing accuracy, the information provided by researchers can be valid and accurate and thus reduce the false result meant to manipulate a given group. Other groups usable in this field include pre-print servers and strategies to check the plagiarism levels.
Conclusion
Reproducible sciences have both cultural and systematic challenges, but one can still meet them with high levels of validity. Measures should be designed constituting practicality and also achievable steps towards advancing reproducibility. If the software discussed are utilized in the right manner, then they can significantly reduce the errors and lack of transparency provided by researchers who decide before conducting the experiments. Providing solutions to problems like some of the scientist do, does not guarantee the effectiveness of the study and altering data to achieve a prescribed goal can bring more difficulties than anticipated. Some solutions though appear sensible may be harmful, totally ineffective and unreliable to science and the psychology field in general. From the paper, peoples can see that what was previously trusted can be questioned, for instance, the statistical information circulated to play with people’s mind through p-hacking. Some other proposed solutions can also trigger challenges; for example, though replication is useful in helping to reinforce trust of scientific data, there exists uncertainty concerning what result should be replicated as well the best replication strategy available. Learning institutions should encourage open science and ensure transparency with the collected and disseminated data.
Work cited
Julia. R (2017), Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). Accessed at: https://youtu.be/s00EfMrZpSs
Marcus R. et al. (2018), A manifesto for reproducible science. Accessed at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021: p 180-230
Dorothy Bishop (2016), University of Oxford, talks about the causes of poor reproducibility. Accessed at: https://youtu.be/UN8jgyXtz6A
SciShow (2016), Learn why an entire field of Psychology is in trouble. Accessed at:
Veritasium
(2016) Mounting evidence suggests a lot of published research is false. Accessed at: https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q
