The following are links to related efforts in Open Science. The first is about funding for a “Reproducibility Initiative” to validate 50 landmark cancer studies. Frankly, this can/should apply to population research as well. Included are links from The Economist and Nature about the importance of replication.
In general, there is a move towards “Open Science” across all disciplines. In fact, a different initiative, “The Reproducibility Project” is an effort to identify the predictors of reproducibility among published studies in psychology – a field that contributes far too much to the “Retraction Watch” website.
Science Exchange News
October 16, 2013
Initiative gets $1.3 million to verify findings of 50 high-profile cancer papers
Richard Van Noorden | Nature News Blog
October 16, 2013
Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab
October 19, 2013
Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not.
The governments of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, spent $59 billion on biomedical research in 2012, nearly double the figure in 2000. One of the justifications for this is that basic-science results provided by governments form the basis for private drug-development work. If companies cannot rely on academic research, that reasoning breaks down. When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.
If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing twice
Jonathan Russell | Nature
April 3, 2013
Large-scale open collaboration to estimate the reproducibility of a sample of studies in psychology
Tracking retractions as a windo into the scientific process
Center for Open Science
A non-profit organization, which provides infrastructure tools for open science.