Main content

Home

Menu

View
Wiki Version:
Environmental and resource economists pride themselves on the credibility of their empirical research. However, in other areas of the social and behavioral sciences, the credibility of empirical research is increasingly being debated by scholars. At the core of this debate are critiques of common research practices and of the professional incentives that encourage these practices. Widespread features of empirical science, such as low statistical power and selective reporting of data or results, are allegedly contributing to a “replicability crisis.” We report that these features are prevalent in the environmental and resource economics literature, and we argue that the discipline needs to take them more seriously. To help reduce their prevalence, we suggest changes in the norms and practices of funders, editors, peer reviewers, and authors.
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
Accept
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.
Accept
×

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Copyright © 2011-2024 Center for Open Science | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Status | API
TOP Guidelines | Reproducibility Project: Psychology | Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology