Massive funding fuels poorly designed studies – Huge sums are allocated to research that is badly designed, never published, or selectively reported, leading to findings that cannot be replicated across fields from cancer biology to AI [1].
Funding bodies have relied on flawed quality metrics – Funders have long depended on inadequate assessment methods such as journal prestige, while evidence shows that “published” does not equal “true” [1].
Peer review lacks reliability, according to Nosek’s framework – A study led by Brian Nosek demonstrates that peer review has major shortcomings and is not designed to fully assess trustworthiness, prompting a shift from reputation to behavior‑based evaluation [2].
Registered Reports are promoted as a solution – The registered‑report format evaluates study proposals before results are known, basing publication decisions on question importance and methodological quality rather than on exciting outcomes [3].
Stiftelsen Dam’s board approved a dedicated program on Feb 9 – On 9 February, the foundation’s board voted to strengthen investment in registered reports with a specific funding program, signaling a move toward financing solid methods over sensational stories [1].
Broader reform efforts include CoARA and a “vis meg” principle – Initiatives like the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment aim to replace journal‑ranking metrics, while the article calls for research funding to adopt a “show me” (vis meg) standard for credibility [1].