Search

This article reviews Albert Einstein's first published paper, submitted for publication in 1900. At that time, Einstein was 21 and a recent college graduate. His paper uses modeling and least squares to analyze data in support of a scientific proposition. Einstein is shown to be well trained, for his day, in using statistics as a tool in his scientific research. This paper also shows his ability to make trivial arithmetic mistakes and some clumsiness in data recording. A major aim of this article is to help provide a better appreciation of Einstein as an active user of statistical arguments in this and other of his important publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reproducibility, the ability to reproduce the results of published papers or studies using their computer code and data, is a cornerstone of reliable scientific methodology. Studies where results cannot be reproduced by the scientific community should be treated with caution. Over the past decade, the importance of reproducible research has been frequently stressed in a wide range of scientific journals such as Nature and Science and international magazines such as The Economist. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that scientific results are often not reproducible across research areas such as psychology and medicine. Statistics, the science concerned with developing and studying methods for collecting, analyzing, interpreting and presenting empirical data, prides itself on its openness when it comes to sharing both computer code and data. In this article, we examine reproducibility in the field of statistics by attempting to reproduce the results in 93 published papers in prominent journals using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data during the 2010–2021 period. Overall, from both the computer code and the data perspective, among all the 93 examined papers, we could only reproduce the results in 14 (15.1%) papers, that is, the papers provide both executable computer code (or software) with the real fMRI data, and our results matched the results in the paper. Finally, we conclude with some author-specific and journal-specific recommendations to improve the research reproducibility in statistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]