Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication
Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/03063127211005551
复制
发表时间：
2021-03-25
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Panofsky, Aaron
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Peterson, David;Panofsky, Aaron
一系列失败的复制和欺诈引发了关于科学自我纠正的问题。元科学活动家提倡鼓励复制并使其更具诊断效力的政策。我们认为，当前的辩论以及科学技术研究很少关注复制实践的一个关键维度。尽管它有时具有诊断功能，但复制通常是出于扩展研究兴趣的实际愿望。由此产生的复制，我们将其标记为“集成”，其特点是对协议的实用灵活性。目标是利用有用的东西，而不是测试真理。然而，在许多实验培养物中，整合复制可能会产生诊断能力不明确的复制。基于对《科学》杂志审查编辑委员会 60 名成员的采访，我们展示了复制的诊断动机和整合动机之间的相互作用如何因领域而异，并产生不同的复制文化。我们提供了六篇论文，旨在将科学技术研究和科学行动主义纳入对话，以说明为什么有效的改革需要面对学科差异的问题。
A series of failed replications and frauds have raised questions regarding self-correction in science. Metascientific activists have advocated policies that incentivize replications and make them more diagnostically potent. We argue that current debates, as well as research in science and technology studies, have paid little heed to a key dimension of replication practice. Although it sometimes serves a diagnostic function, replication is commonly motivated by a practical desire to extend research interests. The resulting replication, which we label 'integrative', is characterized by a pragmatic flexibility toward protocols. The goal is to appropriate what is useful, not test for truth. Within many experimental cultures, however, integrative replications can produce replications of ambiguous diagnostic power. Based on interviews with 60 members of the Board of Reviewing Editors for the journal Science, we show how the interplay between the diagnostic and integrative motives for replication differs between fields and produces different cultures of replication. We offer six theses that aim to put science and technology studies and science activism into dialog to show why effective reforms will need to confront issues of disciplinary difference.