There is a strong influence in publication bias coming from the fact that careers and scientists, let's say, overall assessment is carried out by looking at the venue in which given science is published. As long as the journal is an element, a proxy by which given scientist's output is judged, then publication bias will always be a factor. So I'm not sure whether nature can do a lot to solve this, but there is definitely a tension and there are a lot of pieces that generate this bias. That's all we've got time for on this nature's take. First Republic Bank proudly serves life science companies of all sizes and at every stage of growth.
Many researchers have been critical of the biases that the publication process can introduce into science. For example, they argue that a focus on publishing interesting or significant results can give a false impression of what broader research is finding about a particular field.
To tackle this, some scientists have championed the publication of Registered Reports. These articles split the peer review process in two, first critically assessing the methodology of a research study before data is collected, and again when the results are found. The idea being to encourage robust research regardless of the outcome.
In this episode of Nature's Take we discuss Nature's recent adoption of the format, the pros and cons of Registered Reports, and what more needs to be done to tackle publication bias.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.