Why Most Published Research Findings Are False A Research Paper by John P.A. Ioannidis journals.plos.org There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. researchsciencetruth
Linking Researchers Across Generations An Essay from Field Notes on Science and Nature by Anna K. Behrensmeyer Future valueTime capsulesTools of the digital ageFive basic rulesBonewalks+1 More
Future value In the field, there is a continuous flow of information that consists of daily observations, insights, and data. How can I capture these data and thoughts in notes, maps, and images so that they will be of value both to me and to future generations of scientists?
Tools of the digital age The myriad tools of the digital age that provide quick ways to capture words, images, and data have added to the perception that handwritten field notebooks are passé. As someone who routinely encounters objects that can speak to us over millions of years, I may have a bias towards things that have stood the test of time. That said, it is clear that there is still much to recommend preserving records and information in traditional paper field notes. Over the course of my career, I have developed a habitual field note protocol in which a paper notebook is used both to record information and to integrate records made on standardized data sheets, in computer files, and in photographs. tools
Five basic rules Five basic rules: (1) Record your work as notes to your future self and colleagues. Write notes so that someone fifty years from now (or more) will understand and be able to use the factual information you collected, perhaps for purposes quite different from the original reasons. Clearly separate facts from interpretations so these are not confusing to a future reader. (2) Establish a clear and consistent notebook format and process. I always include the data, place, main activities or events, weather conditions, and other people involves. The day, month, and year is the most important link between that particular point in time and other people’s records, separate data sheets that I filled out myself, photos, and most important, collected specimens. Documenting collecting strategies and protocols receives special attention. In the moment, these may seem like common knowledge for the field team, so sometimes no one bothers to write them out. (3) Don’t lose your field records! (4) Pack a camera, create a visual record. No matter how many words you write to describe a fossil locality, you can’t beat an actual photo, taken on the spot, annotated in pen, and pasted into your notebook. There is no substitute for a photograph you actually mark in “real time” in the field as the best way to preserve a lasting, accurate record for yourself, or for someone who has never seen the site or object in question. (5) Learning through sketches and diagrams. Photographs are great, but drawn what you see is a more powerful way to learn about spatial patterns and relationships. Even if you are not an expert at drawing, you can make sketches that are much more informative than words would be. Always include a scale, an orientation, and labels in your diagrams. Best practices
Bonewalks Example of a standardized field data collection form used to record all the fossil bones encountered along a transect. Informally I refer to these as “bonewalks.” euphony