Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The current push for rigor and reproducibility is driven by a desire for confidence in research results. Here, we suggest a framework for a systematic process, based on consensus principles of measurement science, to guide researchers and reviewers in assessing, documenting, and mitigating the sources of uncertainty in a study. All study results have associated ambiguities that are not always clarified by simply establishing reproducibility. By explicitly considering sources of uncertainty, noting aspects of the experimental system that are difficult to characterize quantitatively, and proposing alternative interpretations, the researcher provides information that enhances comparability and reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Plant et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: