ScienceCheck is a website for researchers to share feedback on the effectiveness of published experimental methods. The motivation for this project was the recognition that researchers often spend time and effort conducting research experiments with methods that other researchers have already found to be unreliable or unsuccessful. By enabling researchers to share, evaluate, and provide feedback on what otherwise often are unreported or incompletely described methods, we hope to help the research community conduct science more productively.
ScienceCheck makes it easy to contribute and comment on the reproducibility and utility of published experimental methods. Submitting evaluations and commenting on them requires only a simple registration, and the site is free. Users can search for contributed evaluations based on specific publications, authors, or subject areas. A user who has employed a method already contributed to the site can rate his or her experience with that method, describe the extent to which the experimental conditions of that experience matched the original protocol, and provide details about their experience with the method. As the ScienceCheck community grows, we believe these evaluations and feedback details will help other researchers make more informed decisions about which experimental methods to employ for their research and better understand how to modify them effectively for their local circumstances.
The ScienceCheck project was conceived by Chris Dockendorff, Ph.D., a synthetic and medicinal chemist who runs the site. I was involved in the project from early in its conception, advising Chris on a wide range of issues, including the technical infrastructure, design, and end-user features of the site.
