Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions
The authors identified factors contributing to poor study reproducibility and excess of ‘significant’ findings in published literature. Research …
Innovation is often prioritized over replication, despite the fact that the latter is a golden standard in science. Does this lead to publication bias and overestimation of the true effect size? This extensive study shows an estimation of the reproducibility of psychological studies, based on replication studies of 100 publications in three psychology journals. The 270 researchers assessed the reproducibility with five measures and acknowledge that there is no single indicator that reflects all aspects of replication success. But the results are quite worrying!
The effect sizes in the replication studies were about half the size compared to the original effect sizes. In only 39% of the replication studies, the results were labelled as a fair replication of the original effects. While some say this is bad news for (psychological) science, others welcome the initiative and point out that this is an example for the movement to better quality in science.
Title: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Authors: Open Science Collaboration
doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716 (2015)
The links were last checked on May 16th, 2017.
NRIN devotes a great deal of attention to the website’s content and would greatly appreciate your suggestions of documents or links you believe to belong on this website.
This selection is an incomplete convenience sample, and does not reflect NRIN’s vision or opinion. Including an item does not necessarily mean that we agree with the authors nor does it imply we think unmentioned items are of poorer quality.
Please report any suggestions, inaccuracies or nonfunctioning hyperlinks etc. that you discover. Thanks in advance!Contact