title: Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.
abstract: Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications "succeed" or "fail," they could have reputational consequences for the claim's originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers' belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Psychology Department, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.
authors.forename: Charles R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Ebersole
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Psychology Department, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.
authors.forename: Jordan R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Axt
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Psychology Department, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.|Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.
authors.forename: Brian A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Nosek
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D062069:Inventions; D009042:Motivation; D011639:Public Opinion; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000523:psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012201:Reward; D012586:Science / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States