Archives


Results from the “Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology”

[Excerpts are taken from the article “Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology” by Errington et al., published in eLife.] “Large-scale replication studies in the social and behavioral sciences provide evidence of replicability challenges (Camerer et al., 2016; Camerer et…

Read More

Picking Significant Estimates to Replicate Can Induce “Replication Crisis”-Like Results

[From the paper “Statistical Methods for Replicability Assessment” by Kenneth Hung and William Fithian, posted at ArXiv.org. Note that H&K’s paper is primarily concerned with presenting an empirical procedure for addressing questions about replicability after correcting for selection bias. This…

Read More

GOODMAN: Systematic Replication May Make Many Mistakes

Replication seems a sensible way to assess whether a scientific result is right. The intuition is clear: if a result is right, you should get a significant result when repeating the work; if it it’s wrong, the result should be…

Read More

IN THE NEWS: Science (July 31, 2018)

[From the article, “Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to just 18” by Jocelyn Kaiser, published in Science magazine] “An ambitious project that set out nearly 5 years ago to replicate experiments from 50 high-impact cancer biology papers, but gradually shrank…

Read More

IN THE NEWS: BBC (February 22, 2017)

[From the article “Most scientists can’t replicate studies by their peers” from the BBC/News/Science&Environment website]  “Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests. This is frustrating…

Read More

Pre-Publication Independent Replication: What Is It?

In a recent paper, Schweinsberg et al. (2015) propose the idea of a “pre-publication independent replication” (PPIR).  The idea is that an author(s) with a one or more studies that have identified interesting results but that have not yet been…

Read More

On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science: A Response from Nosek and Gilbert

[From an article in Retraction Watch] “Scientists have been abuzz over a report in last week’s Science questioning the results of a recent landmark effort to replicate 100 published studies in top psychology journals. The critique of this effort – which suggested…

Read More

Is There Or Is There Not a Replication Crisis in Psychology? That is the Question

[H/T to Retraction Watch for the material in this post] This past week, the journal Science published a study by Dan Gilbert, Gary King and others refuting the claims of Brian Nosek and the Reproducibility Project Psychology (RPP).  The RPP…

Read More

What Do We Know About the Replicability of Psychology Experiments? Less Than We Thought

[FROM THE ARTICLE “STUDY THAT UNDERCUT PSYCH RESEARCH GOT IT WRONG” IN THE HARVARD GAZETTE] “In an attempt to determine the “replicability” of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce…

Read More

Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics: The Glass is 61% Full

[From the article “Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics” published in Science] Researchers today reported the results of a collaborative project in which 18 experimental economics studies originally published in the American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics were replicated.  The researchers…

Read More