What makes science reliable? Reproducibility is one of the hallmarks of a valid scientific finding. But science is facing what many consider a reproducibility crisis, and the stakes are high.

Beyond this project, the scientific community is already taking steps to address reproducibility. Many scientific journals are making stricter requirements for studies and publishing registered reports of studies before they’re carried out. The National Institutes of Health has launched training and funding initiatives to promote robust and reproducible research. F1000Research, an open-access, online publisher launched a “ Preclinical Reproducibility and Robustness Channel ” in 2016 for researchers to publish results from replication studies. Last week several scientists published a “reproducibility manifesto” in the journal Human Behavior that lays out a broad series of steps to improve the reliability of research findings, from the way studies are planned to the way scientists are trained and promoted.

Sasha Kamb, former senior vice president at Amgen and one of the founders of the F1000 channel, says that ultimately science needs to shift its culture and incentives. “There’s seemingly too much to be gained by publishing first and fast with sexy stuff, and not enough value on the care and robustness,” he says. To change the way science is done, scientists need to be rewarded for repeating the work of others—and for doing work that others can repeat.

Photo credit: Tim De Chant/Bruce Wetzel and Harry Schaefer/National Cancer Institute

Share this article

National Corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Brilliant.org. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the NOVA Science Trust, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers.