Hackathon proceedings for: Perspectives on Scientific Error–Coordinating Quality Control in Practice

Authors:
Preprint
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
To correct errors in the scientific record, researchers must dedicate time and attention to the task. However, time and attention are both extremely limited resources in science. Resource-efficient quality control that targets the scientific output most in need of correction is a crucial part of facilitating effective scientific self-correction in practice. This piece summarizes a one-day hackathon that took place during the Perspectives on Scientific Error conference in 2024. The hackathon was devoted to discussing how scientific fields such as psychology can coordinate scientific quality control work in practice in three situations: 1) for promotions and getting tenure, 2) at journals during pre- and post-publication stages, and 3) in error detection projects. These hackathon proceedings contain a summary of these three discussions, as well as a summary of topics brought up during the general discussion (see end of piece). We believe this can serve as a starting point for further discussion about how to select studies to scrutinize during pre-, and post-publication stages within and across different fields.Update November 2026: we have uploaded a version 2 of this preprint, now including an author note stating that: This preprint was submitted to the Journal of Trial and Error, an independent diamond open-access journal, and received peer review. Although we have decided not to pursue journal publication, we are grateful to the reviewers and editor for their thoughtful engagement with the work. We value the transparency that preprinting makes possible and, with the permission of both reviewers and the editor (Sarahanne Field), have included the named reviews as an appendix. We hope that sharing the reviews alongside the preprint preserves and contributes to the broader scholarly conversation this work was intended to stimulate, rather than incorporating feedback from an otherwise private review process into a revised manuscript.