oa Replicatie en de organisatie van communicatie ten behoeve van wetenschappelijke geloofwaardigheid

References

1. Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism. Springer Science & Business Media.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Clark, A. E., & Fujimura, J. H. (Eds.) (1992a). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Clark, A. E., & Fujimura, J. H. (1992b). What tools? Which jobs? Why right? In A. E.Clark & J. H.Fujimura (Eds.), The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences (pp. 3-44). Princeton University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Ozge Buzbas, E. (2021). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), 200805.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Fanelli, D. (2018). Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2628-2631.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (2001). Peer review and quality control. In N. J.Smelser & P. B.Baltes (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 11179-11183). Elsevier.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Galič, M., Timan, T., & Koops, B.-J. (2017). Bentham, Deleuze and beyond: An overview of surveillance theories from the panopticon to participation. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 9-37.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Güttinger, S. (2018). Replications everywhere. BioEssays, 40(7), 1800055.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Güttinger, S. (2019). A new account of replication in the experimental life sciences. Philosophy of Science, 86(3), 453-471.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Harris, R. (2017). Rigor mortis: How sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions. Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS medicine, 11(10), e1001747.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kitcher, P. (2019, 7november). What makes science trustworthy?Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/philip-kitcher-what-makes-science-trustworthy
    [Google Scholar]
16. Lash, T. L., Collin, L. J., & Van Dyke, M. E. (2018). The replication crisis in epidemiology: Snowball, snow job, or winter solstice?Current Epidemiology Reports, 5(2), 175-183.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Leonelli, S. (2018). Rethinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality. In L.Fiorito, S.Scheall & C. E.Suprinyak (Eds.) Including a Symposium on Mary Morgan: Curiosity, Imagination, and Surprise (Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 36B) (pp. 129-146). Emerald Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Mayernik, M. S. (2021). Credibility via coupling: Institutions and infrastructures in climate model intercomparisons. Engaging Science, Technology, & Society, 7(2), 10-32.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is replication?PLoS biology, 18(3), e3000691.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Nelson, N. C. (2020). Towards an expanded conception of publication bias. Journal of Trial and Error, 1(1).
    [Google Scholar]
22. Nelson, N. C. (2021). Understand the real reasons reproducibility reform fails. Nature, 600(7888), 191.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science?Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Peels, R. (2019). Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity & Peer Review, 4(1), 2.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Penders, B., de Rijcke, S., & Holbrook, J. B. (2020). Science’s moral economy of repair: Replication and the circulation of reference. Accountability in Research, 27(2), 107-113.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Penders, B., Holbrook, J. B., & De Rijcke, S. (2019). Rinse and repeat: Understanding the value of replication across different ways of knowing. Publications, 7(3), 52.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Penders, B., & Janssens, A. C. J. (2018). Finding wealth in waste: Irreplicability re-wxamined. BioEssays, 40(12), 1800173.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Peterson, D., & Panofsky, A. (2020, 4augustus). Metascience as a scientific social movement. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4dsqa
    [Google Scholar]
29. Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Randall, D., & C.Welser. 2018. The irreproducibility crisis of modern science: Causes, consequences, and the road to reform. National Association of Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Redish, A. D., Kummerfeld, E., Morris, R. L., & Love, A. C. (2018). Reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(20), 5042-5046.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Saltelli, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about?Futures, 91, 5-11.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Saltelli, A., Ravetz, J., & Funtowicz, S. (2016). Who will solve the crisis in science. In J. R.Ravetz, S.Funtowicz & A.Benessia (Eds.), The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge (pp. 1-30). Consortium for Science, Policy, & Outcomes.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Shapin, S. (1995). Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science. Perspectives on Science, 3(3), 255-275.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Strübing, J. (2018). Problem, Lösung oder Symptom? Zur Forderung nach Replizierbarkeit von Forschungsergebnissen. Forschung & Lehre, 25(2), 102-105.
    [Google Scholar]