Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Nov;7(6):615-31.
doi: 10.1177/1745691612459058.

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability

Brian A Nosek  1 , Jeffrey R Spies  2 , Matt Motyl  2
Affiliations

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability

Brian A Nosek et al. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov.

Abstract

An academic scientist's professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive-getting it right-competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive-getting it published. This article develops strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.

Keywords: false positives; incentives; methodology; motivated reasoning; replication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

References

    1. Aldhous P (2011). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-cont...
    1. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, & Ioannidis JP (2011). Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE, 6, e24357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024357 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altman M, & King G (2007). A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of quantitative data. D-Lib Magazine, 13(3/4). Retrieved from http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/cite-abs.shtml
    1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
    1. Armstrong JS (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63–84.