The Journal of Irreproducible Results is the magazine that has stood for years as the definitive parody of scholarly and scientific journals everywhere. This anthology collects its greatest moments. Selection of the Library of Science Book and the Book-of-the-Month Science Book clubs. 81,000 copies in print.

The Journal of Irreproducible Results is the funniest thing to happen to science since Archimedes ran naked through the streets of Syracuse." --Discover Science humor magazine The Journal of Irreproducible Results has targeted "hypocrisy, arrogance, and ostentatious sesquipedalian circumlocution" since 1955. JIR editor Norman Sperling presents humorous and quirky tidbits relating to science, math, academia, bureaucracy, and witty word play. More than 250 entries ponder and pun the practical and peculiar. Consider OSHA's definition of the word "exit" as compared to Merriam Webster's: OSHA states, "Exit is the portion of a means of egress which is separated from all other spaces of the building or structure by construction or equipment as required in this subpart to provide a protected way to travel to exit discharge." Webster's defines "exit" as, "A way out of an enclosed place or space." If you've ever questioned the warning label on your hand drill that reads, "This product is not intended for use as a dental drill," or wonder what the "punishable by law" penalty is for snipping off that warning label on your pillow or mattress, then this book is for you.

The Journal of Irreproducible Results is the magazine that has stood for years as the definitive parody of scholarly and scientific journals everywhere. This anthology collects its greatest moments. Selection of the Library of Science Book and the Book-of-the-Month Science Book clubs. 81,000 copies in print.

One of the pathways by which the scientific community confirms the validity of a new scientific discovery is by repeating the research that produced it. When a scientific effort fails to independently confirm the computations or results of a previous study, some fear that it may be a symptom of a lack of rigor in science, while others argue that such an observed inconsistency can be an important precursor to new discovery. Concerns about reproducibility and replicability have been expressed in both scientific and popular media. As these concerns came to light, Congress requested that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conduct a study to assess the extent of issues related to reproducibility and replicability and to offer recommendations for improving rigor and transparency in scientific research. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science defines reproducibility and replicability and examines the factors that may lead to non-reproducibility and non-replicability in research. Unlike the typical expectation of reproducibility between two computations, expectations about replicability are more nuanced, and in some cases a lack of replicability can aid the process of scientific discovery. This report provides recommendations to researchers, academic institutions, journals, and funders on steps they can take to improve reproducibility and replicability in science.