Editing Science (section)

=== Challenges ===
{{See also|Criticism of science|Academic bias}}
The [[replication crisis]] is an ongoing [[methodological]] crisis that affects parts of the [[social science|social]] and [[life science]]s. In subsequent investigations, the results of many scientific studies have been proven to be [[reproducibility|unrepeatable]].<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1038/515009a |title=Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' |journal=Nature |volume=515 |issue=7525 |page=9 |year=2014 |last1=Schooler |first1=J. W. |pmid=25373639 |bibcode=2014Natur.515....9S |doi-access=free}}</ref> The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1177/1745691612465253 |title=Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence? |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=528–530 |year=2012 |last1=Pashler |first1=Harold |last2=Wagenmakers |first2=Eric Jan |pmid=26168108 |s2cid=26361121 |doi-access=free}}</ref> as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in [[metascience]], which aims to improve the quality of all scientific research while reducing waste.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ioannidis |first1=John P. A. |last2=Fanelli |first2=Daniele |last3=Dunne |first3=Debbie Drake |last4=Goodman |first4=Steven N. |date=2 October 2015 |title=Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=13 |issue=10 |pages=–1002264 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 |pmid=26431313 |pmc=4592065 |issn=1545-7885 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as [[pseudoscience]], [[fringe science]], or [[junk science]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science |title=Science and Pseudoscience |at=Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |first1=Sven Ove |last1=Hansson |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |date=3 September 2008 |access-date=28 May 2022 |archive-date=29 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029205141/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Shermer |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Shermer |year=1997 |title=Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780965594875 |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=W. H. Freeman & Co. |isbn=978-0-7167-3090-3 |page=17}}</ref> Physicist [[Richard Feynman]] coined the term "[[cargo cult science]]" for cases in which researchers believe, and at a glance, look like they are doing science but lack the honesty to allow their results to be rigorously evaluated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html |title=Cargo Cult Science |last=Feynman |first=Richard |year=1974 |website=Center for Theoretical Neuroscience |publisher=Columbia University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050304032544/http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html |archive-date=4 March 2005 |url-status=dead |access-date=4 November 2016}}</ref> Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories. Science has been described as "the most important tool" for separating valid claims from invalid ones.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Novella |first=Steven |title=The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake |title-link=The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (book) |publisher=Hodder & Stoughton |year=2018 |isbn=978-1473696419 |page=162 |author-link=Steven Novella}}</ref>

There can also be an element of [[political bias]] or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates. Sometimes, research may be characterised as "bad science", research that may be well-intended but is incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term [[scientific misconduct]] refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Coping with fraud |journal=The COPE Report 1999 |pages=11–18 |url=http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151119/http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |quote=It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock&nbsp;... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet. |archive-date=28 September 2007 |access-date=21 July 2011}}</ref>