Recent scandals, retractions and proliferation of scientific research has reached a stage where scrutiny of scientific debate is now routinely reported in the public press as evidence of bungling, or, worse, dishonesty, in our profession (see Zimmer, 2012; Reay, 2010). High profile cases, like the discredited cancer research at Duke University or the notorious “Climate‐gate”, can be traced back to poor implementation of checks and balances on standard scientific practice. One remedy is to require researchers to use open methods of analysis, to share software, and to submit only reproducible analysis where it is feasible. Barriers to reproducibility...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.