Related papers: A Case for a "Refutations and Critiques" Track in …
Publication bias arises whenever the probability that a study is published depends on the statistical significance of its results. This bias, often called the file-drawer effect since the unpublished results are imagined to be tucked away…
The "reproducibility crisis" has been a highly visible source of scientific controversy and dispute. Here, I propose and review several avenues for identifying and prioritizing research studies for the purpose of targeted validation. Of the…
This special volume of Statistical Sciences presents some innovative, if not provocative, ideas in the area of reliability, or perhaps more appropriately named, integrated system assessment. In this age of exponential growth in science,…
We present the problem of finding comparable researchers for any given researcher. This problem has many motivations. Firstly, know thyself. The answers of where we stand among research community and who we are most alike may not be easily…
Critique between peers plays a vital role in the production of scientific knowledge. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence on the origins of criticism, its effects on the papers and individuals involved, and its visibility within the…
To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage…
We respond to Aronow et al. (2025)'s paper arguing that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are "enough," while nonparametric identification in observational studies is not. We agree with their position with respect to experimental versus…
High-quality datasets are fundamental to training and evaluating machine learning models, yet their creation-especially with accurate human annotations-remains a significant challenge. Many dataset paper submissions lack originality,…
Automated fact-checking is a crucial task in the governance of internet content. Although various studies utilize advanced models to tackle this issue, a significant gap persists in addressing complex real-world rumors and deceptive claims.…
Why are some research studies easy to reproduce while others are difficult? Casting doubt on the accuracy of scientific work is not fruitful, especially when an individual researcher cannot reproduce the claims made in the paper. There…
Retracted citations remain a significant concern in academia as they perpetuate misinformation and compromise the integrity of scientific literature despite their invalidation. To analyze the impact of retracted citations, we focused on two…
Book reviews play important roles in scholarly communication especially in arts and humanities disciplines. By using Web of Science's Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index,…
Peer review is at the heart of modern science. As submission numbers rise and research communities grow, the decline in review quality is a popular narrative and a common concern. Yet, is it true? Review quality is difficult to measure, and…
This paper reflects on a number of trends towards a more open and reproducible approach to geographic and spatial data science over recent years. In particular it considers trends towards Big Data, and the impacts this is having on spatial…
Statistics is sometimes described as the science of reasoning under uncertainty. Statistical models provide one view of this uncertainty, but what is frequently neglected is the 'invisible' portion of uncertainty: that assumed not to exist…
The replication crisis has prompted many to call for statistical reform within the psychological sciences. Here we examine issues within Frequentist statistics that may have led to the replication crisis, and we examine the…
The reproduction and replication of reported scientific results is a hot topic within the academic community. The retraction of numerous studies from a wide range of disciplines, from climate science to bioscience, has drawn the focus of…
The machine learning publication process is broken, of that there can be no doubt. Many of these flaws are attributed to the current workflow: LaTeX to PDF to reviewers to camera ready PDF. This has understandably resulted in the desire for…
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its…
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden…