research studies must allow replication H e a l t h M e d i c a l
please respond as a peer commenting on the discussion post. When studies are replicated and achieve the same or similar results as the original study, it gives greater validity to the findings. If a researcher can replicate a study’s results, it means that it is more likely that those results can be generalized to the larger population. Results that are published unreproducible, or not in a replicable sufficiently transparent way, are more likely to be wrong and may slow progress. It is widely agreed in the scientific community that data reproducibility is a key part of the scientific process. When a researcher ensures reproducibility, they provide transparency with their experiment and allow others to understand what was done and why; whether they will go on to reproduce the data or not. It also creates more opportunities for new insight (Cherry, 2020).
To help mitigate this growing concern, there can be standards for new research studies. Research studies must allow replication so scientists can review and verify the work that was done in the study. The results of a study should then be investigated, and the study should be repeated numerous times until the same result are obtained. To ensure research is reproducible, researchers must make certain that the following factors in the study are not affecting research reproducibility: 1) Reagents. Antibodies & Cells, 2: Equipment. Calibration, 3) Personnel. Training & Mentorship, and 4) Methods. Variation in Cell-Based Assays. Therefore, it is the researcher’s responsibility that they include clear and accurate descriptions of their methods, convey the degree of uncertainty in their results, properly use statistical methods, and prevent any overhype in press releases or media coverage about their work (Miceli, 2019).
Cherry, K. (2020, May 25). Why Many Psychology Studies Fail to Replicate. Verywell Mind. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https:// S. (2019). Reproducibility, Replicability, and Reliability in Research. 2.4, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.dbfce7f9