| AVS 66th International Symposium & Exhibition | |
| 2D Materials | Tuesday Sessions |
| Session 2D-TuP |
| Session: | 2D Poster Session |
| Presenter: | Jennifer Heimberg, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |
| Authors: | T. Winters, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine J. Heimberg, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |
| Correspondent: | Click to Email |
One of the pathways by which scientists confirm the validity of a new finding or discovery is by repeating the research that produced it. When a scientific effort fails to independently confirm the computations or results of a previous study, some argue that the observed inconsistency may be an important precursor to new discovery while others fear it may be a symptom of a lack of rigor in science. When a newly reported scientific study has far-reaching implications for science or a major, potential impact on the public, the question of its reliability takes on heightened importance. Concerns over reproducibility and replicability have been expressed in both scientific and popular media.
As these concerns increased in recent years, Congress directed the National Science Foundation to contract with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study to assess reproducibility and replicability in scientific and engineering research and to provide findings and recommendations for improving rigor and transparency in research.
The committee appointed by the National Academies to carry out this task included individuals representing a wide range of expertise: methodology and statistics, philosophy of science, science communication, behavioral and social sciences, earth and life sciences, physical sciences, computational science, engineering, academic leadership, journal editors, and industry expertise in quality control. Individuals with expertise pertaining to reproducibility and replicability of research results across a variety of fields were included as well.
This poster will present the committee's approach to the task and highlights from its findings, conclusions, and recommendations related to factors that influence reproducibility, sources of replicability, strategies for supporting reproducibility and replicability, and how reproducibility and replicability fit into the broader framework of scientific quality and rigor.