2004
Volume 50 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Het bewaken van de kwaliteit en de geloofwaardigheid van wetenschappelijke beweringen vereist verschillende gereedschappen in verschillende epistemische culturen. Replicatie en replicatiestudies vormen een belangrijk organiserend principe voor communicatie tussen wetenschappers, ten behoeve van wetenschappelijke geloofwaardigheid. Daar staat tegenover dat dit niet binnen elke epistemische cultuur geldt, en dat er alternatieve manieren zijn om communicatie met hetzelfde doel te organiseren.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.004.PEND
2022-10-01
2022-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13846930/50/3/TCW2022.3.004.PEND.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.004.PEND&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.004.PEND
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error