About this resource

    Type of resources
    Primary Source, Reading, Paper
    Education level(s)
    College / Upper Division (Undergraduates)
    Primary user(s)
    Student
    Subject area(s)
    Applied Science, Social Science
    Language(s)
    English
    Cluster
    Academic Structures and Institutions
    Last updated
    26 May 2020
    Primary SourceReadingPaper

    Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right

    By Charles R. Ebersole, Jordan R. Axt, Brian A. Nosek

    Open this resource

    Level College / Upper Division (Undergraduates) · For Student · Language English

    Abstract

    Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications “succeed” or “fail,” they could have reputational consequences for the claim’s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers’ belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.

    Keywords Reproducibility Crisis and Credibility Revolution