Improving Scientific Reproducibility with Applied Philosophy of Science

对研究可复制性的担忧继续引起多个科学学科的研究人员的兴趣，特别是在过去十年中。在心理学领域，人们对低可复制性提出了许多解释。最值得注意的是现行出版标准的问题，它阻碍了无效发现的发表，以及鼓励使用有问题的研究实践(QRP)。对QRP流行率的估计表明，它们在心理学中可能非常常见，令人担忧。然而，研究人员本身以及独立法官往往认为，在某些情况下，大多数QRP的使用是可以辩护的。一个相关且迄今尚未回答的问题是，这些QRP的理由如何适应更广泛的认识论框架，这些框架支撑着许多研究人员的实践。QRP的认知正当性问题是一个特别值得研究的更广泛话题的一部分：心理学研究人员实际上在多大程度上注意到并解释了他们所在领域的因果推理的困难？有人提出，对适当和定义明确的认识论的不充分坚持是社会心理学研究结果难以复制的一个重要因素。尽管这既有趣又可信，但目前这只是一种猜测。因此，我提出了一个项目，该项目将探索缺乏认识论考虑可能会在多大程度上阻碍研究的可复制性，以及如何改进它。这个项目既新颖又雄心勃勃，尽管作者们已经从理论上讨论了如何用科学哲学来改进研究，但这个话题还没有通过实验来解决。我提议收集有关研究人员信念和观点的定性和定量数据，与科学哲学家合作分析逻辑一致性，并将随机对照试验中产生的想法应用于测试研究实践是否可以得到改善。

Concerns about the replicability of research have continued to interest researchers across a number of scientific disciplines, particularly during the last decade. Within psychology, numerous explanations for low replicability have been proposed. Most notable are the problems of current publication standards, which disincentivise the publication of null findings, as well as incentivising the use of questionable research practices (QRPs). Estimates of the prevalence of QRPs have suggested that they may be alarmingly common within psychology. However, researchers themselves, as well as independent judges, often rate the use of most QRPs as defensible in certain situations. One pertinent and hitherto unanswered question is how these QRP justifications fit into the wider epistemological frameworks which underpin the practices of many researchers. The question of epistemic justification for QRPs comprises one part of a wider topic that is particularly deserving of examination: to what extent do psychology researchers actually take note of, and account for, the difficulties of causal inference in their field? It has been suggested that insufficient adherence to an appropriate and well-defined epistemology is an important contributory factor to the poor replicability of findings in social psychology. While both interesting and plausible, this is no more than speculation at present. Consequently, I am proposing a project which will explore the extent to which a lack of epistemological consideration may be hindering the replicability of research, and how it can be improved. This project is both novel and ambitious insofar as, while authors have theoretically discussed how research could be improved with philosophy of science, the topic has yet to be addressed experimentally. I am proposing to collect qualitative and quantitative data on researchers' beliefs and opinions, collaboratively analyse logical consistencies with philosophers of science, and apply the ideas generated in randomised control trials aimed at testing if research practices can be improved.