Improving Scientific Research: Renegotiated Principles of Science, Proposals, Failures, and Successes

ABSTRACT

Science is a self‐correcting process, and scientific research aims to improve adequacy, accuracy, and utility. However, improving scientific research is a demanding task, especially when currently some key principles of science are challenged and renegotiated. Key challenges in the current environment include the increasing loss of trust in scientists; the production of most of the published scientific literature in countries without full democracy and/or in countries without fundamental freedoms, e.g., freedom of the press; limited public availability and transparency as most research is funded by non‐public sponsors that do not prioritize or even seek publication of results; and rapid developments on the frontier of artificial intelligence where non‐human agents can supplement and/or replace human researchers. Concurrently, there have been many proposals on how to improve research. Among a plethora of suggestions and guidance, some may not be useful or may even be harmful, and most lack evidence. Revisiting some key proposals shows mixed track records of failures and successes. Examples are provided from efforts to enhance collaboration, team science, and large studies; replication culture; registration and open science; containment of conflicts of interest; and statistical, computational, and informatics improvements. The optimal stages to improve research (early and/or late in the scientific process) may be debated, and the role, function, and mode of optimal peer review are also under scrutiny. Eventually, science and scientific research are demanding, hard enterprises. Genuine progress requires openness, honesty, and selflessness.