(FROM THE ARTICLE “The Reproducibility Crisis Is Good for Science”) The author, an editor at Nature, reports on ways the reproducibility crisis is promoting change in science. An excerpt: “For what it’s worth, articles about confirmation bias and the misuse of p-values are consistently among Nature’s most-read stories. Opportunities to get credit for careful work that does not yield a flashy, new result are also expanding. In the past year, journals as diverse as the American Journal of Gastroenterology and Scientific Data actively solicited replication studies or negative results. Information Systems, a data science journal, has introduced a new type of article in which independent experts are explicitly invited to verify work from a previous publication. Last November, the U.K.’s Royal Society introduced a system known as registered reports: The decision to publish is made before results are obtained based on a pre-specified plan to address an experimental question. The F1000 Preclinical and Reproducibility Channel, launched in February, aims to give drug companies an easy way to show which scientific papers promising new paths to drugs might not deliver.”  To read more, click here.