RMZ Science Works

Since claims about a ‘replication crisis’ started to circulate, the concept and practice of replication have gained new momentum. Some communities have started to promote replication indiscriminately as a practice and criterion for research quality irrespective of the diverse research communities’ various conditions and ways of knowledge production. Others have identified a replication drive, which involves moving replication into various research communities. This drive is enacted by incentivizing or demanding replication and related Open Science practices, and forms part of a culture change strategy towards increased replicability. Here, we propose the two-dimensional social replication of replication framework. It describes the process of moving replication across epistemic communities and enables us to understand first how the diverse epistemic communities across the research landscape relate to replication as a concept, practice and evaluative criterion and, second, which changes it undergoes along the way. The framework’s two dimensions are adaptation and adoption. Moving replication into different research communities without sufficient adaptation may lead to a potentially problematic and inappropriate social replication of replication. We thus argue that sustainable and appropriate social replication of replication requires adaptation, or more precisely a process of co-adaptation between replication and a community’s already established technologies of accountability.

The seminar describes the dramatic transformation of the scientific publishing market in the last 30 years. It discusses the forces underpinning this process, its implications for science and scientists, and proposes individual and policy actions to counter some of its problematic aspects.

In the ever-changing world of Academia, rules and values are at stake. These form the basis of new regulations, including openness. The Harbinger research project was a six-year international research project investigating the extent to which early career researchers (ECRs) are contributing uniquely to this change, allowing to identify continuums or cracks. This presentation focuses on the results from France and China, shedding light on the shared values of ECRs, their compliance with open science policies, and the differences in their publication, collaboration and socialisation strategies. The presentation will also discuss how these differences in approaching new values and norms contribute to a new research culture,  which may represent a call for a reimagining of Homo Academicus.

Prof. Jesper W. Schneider (Aarhus University, Denmark) will introduce and discuss the concepts of questionable research practices and misconduct. We will discuss their alleged widespread use, the suggested reasons why, and the presumed effects they have on the science system, not least their role in the so-called replication crisis. Examples will be given, and we will end by discussing suggested remedies to the challenges. The talk is based on the preprint "Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research." (https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/r6j3z/)Jesper W. Schneider spoke at the BUA-seminar 'So geht Wissenschaft - Aktuelle Diskussionen zu Open Science und Forschungsqualität', hosted by Professor Martin Reinhart (Humboldt-Universität Berlin/Robert Merton Center for Science Studies).

Peer review has never been a uniform practice, but is now more diverse than ever. Despite a vast literature, little is known of how different disciplines organise peer review. This paper draws on 95 qualitative interviews with editors and publishers and several hundred written reports to analyse the organisation of peer review in pure mathematics. This article focuses on the practice of ‘quick opinions’ at top journals in mathematics: asking (senior) experts about a paper’s importance, and only after positive evaluation sending the paper for a full review (which most importantly means checking the paper’s correctness). Quick opinions constitute a form of ‘importance only’ peer review and are thus the opposite of the ‘soundness only’ approach at mega-journals such as PLOS ONE. Quick opinions emerged in response to increasing submissions and the fact that checking correctness in mathematics is particularly time-consuming. Quick opinions are informal and are often only addressed to editors. They trade on, indeed reinforce, a journal hierarchy, where journal names are often used as a ‘members’ measurement system’ to characterise importance. Finally, quick opinions highlight that a key function of the peer-reviewed journal today, apart from validation and filtration, is ‘designation’ – giving authors items on their CV.