Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-mblfh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T07:22:59.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing a replication-first rule for Ph.D. projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Arnold R. Kochari  and
Markus Ostarek
Arnold R. Kochari
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.kochari@uva.nlhttp://akochari.com/
Markus Ostarek
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. markus.ostarek@mpi.nlhttp://www.mpi.nl/people/ostarek-markus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Zwaan et al. mention that young researchers should conduct replications as a small part of their portfolio. We extend this proposal and suggest that conducting and reporting replications should become an integral part of Ph.D. projects and be taken into account in their assessment. We discuss how this would help not only scientific advancement, but also Ph.D. candidates' careers.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chambers, C. D. (2013) Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 49(3):609–10. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2011) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90(3):891–904. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. J. & Brannick, M. T. (2012) Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods 17(1):120–28. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. A. (2003) The politics of publication. Nature 422:259–61. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/422259a.Google Scholar
Maher, B. & Anfres, M. S. (2016) Young scientists under pressure: What the data show. Nature 538:444–45. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/538444aGoogle Scholar
Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects. Editorial. (2017) Nature 550(7677):429. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/550429a.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. & Motyl, M. (2012) Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6):615–31. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J. B., Vul, E. & Yarkoni, T. (2017) Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18(2):115–26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.167Google Scholar
Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017a) Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biology 15(3):e2000797. Available at: http//doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797.Google Scholar