![the n.c.a.a. under scrutiny the n.c.a.a. under scrutiny](https://www.seattleweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/15290415_web1_Tarrest.jpg)
Endorsed by the World Health Organization, it helped set policy that affects hundreds of millions of children annually in the developing world.īut now researchers have published papers describing two failures to replicate the original findings. Here’s a fresh example of a study that turned out not to be reproducible, because the results couldn’t be replicated: as Ben Goldacre relates in BuzzFeed, two economists published a massive study in 2004 claiming that a “deworm everyone” approach in Kenya “improved children’s health, school performance, and school attendance,” even among children several miles away who didn’t get deworming pills. Los Alamos National Labs celebrates 50-year anniversary of its linear particle accelerator That doesn’t mean irreproducible papers shouldn’t be somehow marked, though. Retraction should be reserved for the most severe cases. And most scientists would agree that they shouldn’t be after all, most science is overturned one way or another over time. But there are something like two million papers published annually, so the vast majority of studies containing irreproducible data are never retracted. Out-and-out fraud like that, or suspected fraud, is the reason for a bit fewer than half of the 400-plus retractions per year.
#The n.c.a.a. under scrutiny code#
A researcher may have forgotten about a step in the process when he wrote up the methodology, for example, counting data in the wrong category, or writing the wrong code for her statistics program.įaking results is another reason, but it’s not nearly as common as others. There are lots of reasons why a study may not pass the replication test, from flat-out errors to a failure to adequately describe the methodology used. So what gives? And how can we fix this problem?Īlthough definitions of reproducibility and replication vary somewhat, for a study to be reproducible, another researcher needs to be able to replicate it, meaning use the same data and analysis to come to the same conclusions. That means that an awful lot of “promising” results aren’t very promising at all and that a lot of researchers who could be solving critical problems based on previously published work end up just spinning their wheels.
![the n.c.a.a. under scrutiny the n.c.a.a. under scrutiny](https://cyprus-mail.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/dialog-960x603.jpg)
In one analysis, just 11% of preclinical cancer research studies could be confirmed. The rate of what is referred to as “irreproducible research” – more on what that means in a moment – exceeds 50%, according to a recent paper. Sandia National Labs has new design idea for wind turbines