Addressing Rigor in Scientific Studies

Guest blog by Devon C. Crawford, Ph.D., Program Director, Office of Research Quality, NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Originally published on the NIH Science, Health, and Public Trust blog. Devon C. Crawford, Ph.D., Program Director, Office of Research Quality Science communication is rapidly evolving. The growing use of preprints and the sheer number of published studies make it increasingly difficult to determine which findings are worthy of attention. Not all scientific studies are created equal. Communicators need to discern which are reputable in order to know what to convey to their target audience. Inaccurate or untrustworthy information can have dire consequences, so it is important to understand how to assess whether studies have robust findings and how to communicate this to audiences. Science communicators need to describe the major conclusions from a study, along with its implications for future research and public health practice, without overstating the results. Science is a continual process of updating knowledge that is conditional on how the results were obtained; it is not a series of discovered “facts.” All scientific conclusions are subject to interpretation, and all have some degree of uncertainty. Responsible science communicators will report important details of a study: the number of subjects, species involved, techniques used, major outcomes, and caveats. But, even this level of reporting does not...
Source: NIH Extramural Nexus - Category: Research Authors: Tags: blog Open Mike Grants policy rigor Source Type: funding