Smaldino & McElreath (2016) -- The natural selection of bad science https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.160384 https://royalsocietypublishi

Smaldino & McElreath (2016) -- The natural selection of bad science https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.160384 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.1603... > Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. [...] Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. [...] To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods. As in the real world, successful labs produce more ‘progeny,’ such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own. Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.