Version française Acutalité du LAPPS - colloques, manifestations scientifiques...
Daniel Lakens (PR, Eindhoven University of Technology) :“Which research is worth doing well?
In recent years scientists in many disciplines have had to raise the bar to improve the reliability of their findings. The increasing realization that fields should perform more replication studies, as well as design studies with larger samples, reduces the number of research questions we can reliably study, compared to our beliefs about this a decade ago. Improving the quality of individual studies takes more resources, and further reduces the number of studies we can perform. This raises questions concerning research prioritization. Which studies should fields perform, and how should they decide upon these studies? Are individual scientists able to make these choices, or does research prioritization require collective decision making, for example at consensus conferences? Would increasing coordination in the selection of research questions facilitate scientific progress, or hinder it? And how should we shape reward structures in academia to move towards collective agreements about research prioritization, i
le 16 mars 2026
Bâtiment Max Weber (W)
Nous avons le plaisir d’accueillir Daniel Lakens le lundi 16 mars à 14h dans l’amphithéâtre du bâtiment Weber à l’Université Paris Nanterre.
Daniel Lakens est professeur de métascience au sein du groupe Human-Technology Interaction à la Eindhoven University of Technology (Pays-Bas), où il préside également le comité d’éthique de la recherche. Ses travaux portent sur l’amélioration des méthodes de recherche et des inférences statistiques en sciences sociales. Il a publié plus de 100 articles scientifiques, dont plusieurs très influents sur les tailles d’effet, les analyses séquentielles, les tests d’équivalence et la justification de la taille d’échantillon. Il est également une figure centrale du mouvement de science ouverte. Il a notamment coédité les premiers Registered Reports en science avec Brian Nosek en 2014, contribué à la création de financements dédiés aux études de réplication auprès de l’agence néerlandaise NWO, et participé au Reproducibility Project: Psychology. En 2023, il a reçu le Ammodo Science Award pour ses contributions fondamentales aux sciences sociales.
Lors de ce séminaire, il présentera une conférence intitulée “Which research is worth doing well?”
Abstract
In recent years scientists in many disciplines have had to raise the bar to improve the reliability of their findings. The increasing realization that fields should perform more replication studies, as well as design studies with larger samples, reduces the number of research questions we can reliably study, compared to our beliefs about this a decade ago. Improving the quality of individual studies takes more resources, and further reduces the number of studies we can perform. This raises questions concerning research prioritization. Which studies should fields perform, and how should they decide upon these studies? Are individual scientists able to make these choices, or does research prioritization require collective decision making, for example at consensus conferences? Would increasing coordination in the selection of research questions facilitate scientific progress, or hinder it? And how should we shape reward structures in academia to move towards collective agreements about research prioritization, in fields where it is deemed to be beneficial?
Mis à jour le 13 mars 2026