Abstract
Scientific research processes that require diligent work and intense effort and the publication of research results in reputable journals contribute to the development of science on the one hand and scientists on the other. In parallel with the developments in information and information technologies, there is a rapid increase in scientific studies and publications. However, during this rapid increase, it is observed that many research results with significant methodological errors can be published in reputable scientific journals and receive many citations in a short time. The "replication crisis" discussions used to express this problem show that openness and transparency should be a prerequisite for scientific studies and publications. For this purpose, pre-registration should be a rule for all kinds of scientific research, referee evaluations should be possible not only at the publication stage but also at every stage of the research, even public evaluation should be possible, and "open science" practices should become widespread in order to protect scientific prestige and trust in science.
Keywords
Project Number
-
References
- 1- Pashler H, Wagenmakers E. Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7(6):528-30. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253.
- 2- Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
- 3- Mathur MB, Fox MP. Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2023;192(4):658–64. doi:10.1093/aje/kwad007.
- 4- Schor S, Karten I. Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts. JAMA. 1966;195(13):1123–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100130097026.
- 5- Ioannidis JPA, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLOS Biology. 2015;13(10):e1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264.
- 6- Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. The scientists who publish a paper every five days. Nature. 2018;561:167-9.
- 7- Ioannidis JPA. Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study. Scientometrics. 2023;128(5):3171-84. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04687-5.
- 8- Allen C, Mehler DMA. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(5): e3000246.
- 9- Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised trial. Brit. J. Psychiat. 2000;176:47–51.
- 10- Besley JC, Lee NM, Pressgrove G. Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication. 2021;43(1):3–32.
Abstract
Özenli çalışma ve yoğun çaba gerektiren bilimsel araştırma süreçleri ile araştırma sonuçlarının sayın dergilerde yayınlanması bir yandan bilimin bir yandan da bilim insanının gelişmesine katkı sağlamaktadır. Bilişim ve bilgi teknolojilerindeki gelişmelere paralel olarak bilimsel çalışmalarda ve yayınlarda da hızlı bir artış olmaktadır. Ne var ki bu hızlı artış sırasında önemli yöntem hatalarına sahip pek çok araştırma sonucunun saygın bilim dergilerinde yayın olarak yer alabildiği, kısa sürede çok sayıda atıf alabildiği görülmektedir. Bu sorunu ifade etmek amacıyla kullanılan “tekrar edilebilirlik krizi” tartışmaları bilimsel çalışma ve yayınlarda açıklık, şeffaflık özelliklerinin önkoşul olması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu amaçla her türlü bilimsel araştırma için ön-kayıt uygulamasının bir kural olması, hakem değerlendirmelerinin sadece yayın aşamasında değil araştırmanın her aşamasında yapılabilmesi hatta kamusal değerlendirmenin mümkün olması, bilimsel saygınlığın ve bilime güvenin korunması için “açık bilim” uygulamalarının yaygınlaşması gerekmektedir.
Keywords
Ethical Statement
Herhangi bir etik sorun, çıkar çatışması yoktur.
Supporting Institution
-
Project Number
-
Thanks
-
References
- 1- Pashler H, Wagenmakers E. Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7(6):528-30. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253.
- 2- Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
- 3- Mathur MB, Fox MP. Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2023;192(4):658–64. doi:10.1093/aje/kwad007.
- 4- Schor S, Karten I. Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts. JAMA. 1966;195(13):1123–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100130097026.
- 5- Ioannidis JPA, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLOS Biology. 2015;13(10):e1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264.
- 6- Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. The scientists who publish a paper every five days. Nature. 2018;561:167-9.
- 7- Ioannidis JPA. Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study. Scientometrics. 2023;128(5):3171-84. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04687-5.
- 8- Allen C, Mehler DMA. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(5): e3000246.
- 9- Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised trial. Brit. J. Psychiat. 2000;176:47–51.
- 10- Besley JC, Lee NM, Pressgrove G. Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication. 2021;43(1):3–32.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Public Health (Other) |
| Journal Section | Review |
| Authors | |
| Project Number | - |
| Early Pub Date | October 29, 2023 |
| Publication Date | October 29, 2023 |
| Submission Date | September 12, 2023 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2023 Volume: 8 Issue: 3 |
International Peer Reviewed Journal
The journal adopts Open Access Policy and does not request article proccessing charge (APC), article publishing charge or any other charges.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License