The replication crisis in the social, behavioural and life sciences has spurred a reform movement aimed at increasing the credibility of scientific studies. Many of these credibility-enhancing reforms focus, appropriately, on specific research and publication practices. A less often mentioned aspect of credibility is the need for intellectual humility or being transparent about and owning the limitations of our work. Although intellectual humility is presented as a widely accepted scientific norm, we argue that current research practice does not incentivize intellectual humility. We provide a set of recommendations on how to increase intellectual humility in research articles and highlight the central role peer reviewers can play in incentivizing authors to foreground the flaws and uncertainty in their work, thus enabling full and transparent evaluation of the validity of research.

社会科学、行为科学和生命科学领域的复制危机引发了一场旨在提高科学研究可信度的改革运动。许多这些提高可信度的改革适当地关注特定的研究和出版实践。可信度的一个不常被提及的方面是需要知识上的谦逊或对我们工作的局限性保持透明和承认。尽管知识谦逊被视为一种被广泛接受的科学规范，但我们认为当前的研究实践并没有激励知识谦逊。我们提供了一系列关于如何在研究文章中增加知识谦逊的建议，并强调同行评审员在激励作者强调他们工作中的缺陷和不确定性方面可以发挥的核心作用，