Further commentaries, articles and blog posts worth reading:
Zen und die Kunst, Forschung zu bewerten (in German)

 In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments

 Preregistering, transparency, and large samples boost psychology studies’ replication rate to nearly 90%
 
How to avoid mistakes in science publications
 
Constructive correction
 
To fix peer review, break it into stages
 
How to make your scientific data accessible, discoverable and useful
 
Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards
 
The Pandemic Uncovered Ways to Speed Up Science
 
Lots of bad science still gets published. Here’s how we can change that.
 
Scientific Fraud Is Slippery to Catch—but Easier to Combat
 
Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is?
 
Publish less, disrupt more
 
Who should take responsibility for integrity in research?
 
Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum
 
Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review
 
Global drive for more open, rigorous research is growing
 
How to publish responsible reproducible research
 
Inverse publication reporting bias favouring null, negative results
 
Science Has a Reproducibility Problem. Can Sample Sharing Help?
 
Replication games: how to make reproducibility research more systematic
 
Reproducibility trial: 246 biologists get different results from same data sets
FacebookXEmailLinkedInWhatsApp