UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN)’s Post

Zbys Fedorowicz and Claire Allen I think there is space for replication studies that confirm methods are appropriate and results are consistent accross different environments. What I think should not happen is: 1) suppose that every piece of research *needs* to be reproduced to be valid. Validity and knowledge should not be based *only* on reproducibility. There are studies good enough and there are studies of a nature that doesn’t allow replication. 2) closed access or poorly reported studies — these are impossible to trust and to replicate. 3) to do research to get funding (and salaries). Research (especially in health) should be based on clinical or epidemiological necessity and priority— not on researchers agenda. This “money making machine” incentivises the paper mills. The predatory journals. And the insane competition in academia leading to low quality of life for researchers. We need less research because research should ve good enough so we don’t need more. We need research to benefit the people who will use it. (Zbys I agree that ending papers with “more research is needed”… is not helpful. It is killing the study. At least we need to say where we failed and others can pick up from there).

https://www.academia.edu/101754457/More_or_Less_Healthcare_Research_or_Healthcare_ResearchMore_or_Less?source=swp_share

Zbys Fedorowicz I'd suggest we also need more accessible research to avoid duplication.

Great advice!

More or less or healthcare research more or less