Doing things twice (or differently): Strategies to identify studies for targeted validation
School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Bioinformatics, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Policy, Translational Medicine, Science Policy
- Keywords
- reproducibility crisis, metaresearch, metascience, preprints, scientific epistemology, peer review, open access, journal reform, scientific data science, structure of science
- Copyright
- © 2018 Sarma
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2018. Doing things twice (or differently): Strategies to identify studies for targeted validation. PeerJ Preprints 6:e2830v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2830v2
Abstract
The “reproducibility crisis” has been a highly visible source of scientific controversy and dispute. Here, I propose and review several avenues for identifying and prioritizing research studies for the purpose of targeted validation. Of the various proposals discussed, I identify scientific data science as being a strategy that merits greater attention among those interested in reproducibility. I argue that the tremendous potential of scientific data science for uncovering high-value research studies is a significant and rarely discussed benefit of the transition to a fully open-access publishing model.
Author Comment
Revised style file, added ORCID ID, updated references