Nature published a special on Challenges in irreproducible research.
Monya Baker wrote on the crisis of reproducibility in research – 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.
The figures are grim for the discipline of science in which so many place so much trust.
Here are the reasons given for lack of reproducibility in research:
Consensus on the importance of causes is limited and opinion probably lacks evidence in many cases. Many of these issues are beyond the power of ISO 17025 to dictate. The issues researchers consider the most frequent sources of problems are those accreditation is least able to deal with.
UKAS-sufferers would be astonished that Nature can publish a special on the topic and not deal with accreditation to ISO 17025/15189 as the supposed solution. Perhaps it isn’t. The journal does discuss quality assurance which, of course, can be done well without paying the inspection tax.
Researchers in the articles who wish to remain anonymous suggest that adequate quality assurance will add costs in the region of 30-50%, which is similar to accreditation.
Research is certainly disconnected from the world of scientific service delivery and pathology.
The unmeasured claims of the ISO inspection gang to deliver assurance have still not reached academia. They will slow research progress greatly if they do.
But maybe academics would be tempted to measure the efficacy of accreditation. The results might turn out to be worse than the confidence in research reproducibility.
The Oxebridge blog will keep you up to date with corruption within the quality cartel. It’s time a journal did a special on this.