Methodische Mediathek

We often hear the self-correcting mechanisms in science invoked as a reason to trust science, but it is not always clear what these mechanisms are. Some quality control mechanisms, such as peer review for journals, or vetting for textbooks or for public dissemination, have recently been found not to provide much of a safeguard against invalid claims. Instead, I argue that we should look for visible signs of a scientific community's commitment to self-correction. These signs include transparency in the research and peer review process, and investment in error detection and quality control. I describe some specific examples of transparency and quality control practices. We should trust scientific claims more to the extent that they were produced by communities that have these hallmarks of credibility. Fields that are more transparent and engage in more criticism and correction should earn more trust. Meta-science can provide scientists and the public with valuable information in assessing the credibility of scientific fields.