A review of ideas and strategies to improve scientific research and its dissemination in life and social sciences

In recent years, issues concerning reproducibility, questionable research practices (QRPs), and analytical flexibility have been contentious topics in the fields of life and social sciences. As such, research has increasingly focused on studying the way we conduct science (which is a field of study in meta-science), and new ideas have been introduced on how we can improve the way we conduct science. In this literature review, we aim to summarize research and ideas that have been introduced in the past decade. We give an overview of studies concerning reproducibility in contemporary life and social sciences, summarize reasons for failed and successful reproductions, and outline QRPs which are often used when results do not support the researcher’s hypothesis and/or when results are not statistically significant. We also discuss cognitive biases in research and the topic of analytical flexibility, which warrants straightforward interpretation and generalization of results. We summarize the literature on improving the scientific process and system of life and social sciences in six broad categories, including (1) Focus on aggregate effects across replication attempts to achieve scientific knowledge, (2) Improved preparation and achieving more solid empirical claims through (pre)registered reports when performing hypothesis-driven research, (3) Expanding our statistical toolbox by going beyond null-hypothesis significance testing, and justifying analytical choices a priori, (4) Transparency, complete reporting, and openness (if warranted) of data, code, all performed analyses, results, and (changes in) research plans, (5) Improving the way we decide what is considered scientific by allowing for continuous, graded, open, and (optionally anonymous) peer review, and by giving reviewers checklists, and (6) Changing incentives in science from a focus on quantity to quality and rigor by focusing on research metrics that more closely reflect scientific quality (e.g., by using graded peer evaluations).