Next Article in Journal
Environmental Enrichment for Sucker and Weaner Pigs: The Effect of Enrichment Block Shape on the Behavioural Interaction by Pigs with the Blocks
Next Article in Special Issue
Selection of Meat Inspection Data for an Animal Welfare Index in Cattle and Pigs in Denmark
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Brazilian Citizens: Expectations Regarding Dairy Cattle Welfare and Awareness of Contentious Practices
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperReview
Animals 2017, 7(12), 90;

The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)

Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 19 November 2017 / Accepted: 23 November 2017 / Published: 27 November 2017
Full-Text   |   PDF [908 KB, uploaded 27 November 2017]   |  
  |   Review Reports


In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools. View Full-Text
Keywords: reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research reproducibility; replicability; validity; questionable research practices; meta-research

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Wicherts, J.M. The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them). Animals 2017, 7, 90.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Animals EISSN 2076-2615 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top