Reproducibility Project

The Reproducibility Project: Psychology was a collaboration completed by 270 contributing authors to repeat 100 published experimental and correlational psychological studies to see if they could get the same results a second time.[1] It showed that only 39 percent of replications obtained statistically significant results.[2][3] While the authors emphasize that the findings reflect the reality of doing science and there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology, they have been interpreted as part of a growing problem of "failed" reproducibility in science.[4][5][6] There was no evidence of fraud and no evidence that any original study was definitely false. The conclusion of the collaboration was that evidence for frequently published findings in psychological science was not as strong as originally claimed. This may be a result of pressure to publish and a hypercompetitive culture across the sciences that favor novel findings and provide little incentive for replicating findings.[7]

One earlier study found that around $28 billion worth of research per year in medical fields is non-reproducible.[8]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science". Science 349 (6251): aac4716. August 28, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. PMID 26315443. Retrieved September 12, 2015.
  2. ↑ "Brian Nosek's Reproducibility Project Finds Many Psychology Studies Unreliable - The Atlantic". Theatlantic.com. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
  3. ↑ "OSF". Https:. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
  4. ↑ "Why most published research findings are false". PLoS Med. 2: e124. August 2005. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
  5. ↑ Bec Crew. "Scientists tried to replicate 100 psychology experiments and 64% failed". ScienceAlert.
  6. ↑ Elizabeth Gilbert (27 August 2015). "We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?". The Conversation.
  7. ↑ Carey, Benedict. "Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says". The New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2015.
  8. ↑ "PLOS Biology". plos.org.


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, March 08, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.