Novel science vs. replicable and robust science
Academic science tends to reward novelty. New methods, technologies, and findings are more likely to attract publication, citations, funding, career recognition (and of course profits!). But there is often less incentive to test whether existing findings replicate, or to invest in larger, better-powered studies that establish how robust those findings really are. One alternative is to pool effort. Rather than multiple labs running slightly different, individually underpowered studies, initiatives such as Registered Replication Reports and the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinate researchers to test the same questions across multiple labs and settings. This can provide much stronger evidence about whether an effect replicates and how robust it is.
Changing the incentives for this kind of research is also becoming part of institutional practice. UKRN’s OR4 project is working on recruitment, promotion, and appraisal criteria, with more than 50 UK institutions participating in its community of practice and a published toolkit for incorporating open research into researcher assessment.
The challenge is not to choose between novelty and replication. Science needs both. The question is whether our research culture rewards building trustworthy evidence as strongly as it rewards producing something new.
By Teresa Simoes Steyn