Many Studies Fail Reproducibility Tests Again In Social Sciences And Psychology, So What’s Up?
Rather than view the studies that aren't able to be replicated as troublesome, scientists say they can predict the losers and regard the flawed research as a way to help accelerate the process of science.
The Washington Post:
Researchers Replicate Just 13 Of 21 Social Science Experiments Published In Top Journals
The “reproducibility crisis” in science is erupting again. A research project attempted to replicate 21 social science experiments published between 2010 and 2015 in the prestigious journals Science and Nature. Only 13 replication attempts succeeded. The other eight were duds, with no observed effects consistent with the original findings. The failures do not necessarily mean the original results were erroneous, as the authors of this latest replication effort note. (Achenbach, 8/27)
NPR:
Psychology Studies Often Can't Be Reproduced
As part of the reproducibility study, about 200 social scientists were surveyed and asked to predict which results would stand up to the re-test and which would not. Scientists filled out a survey in which they predicted the winners and losers. They also took part in a "prediction market," where they could buy or sell tokens that represented their views. "They're taking bets with each other, against us," says Anna Dreber, an economics professor at the Stockholm School of Economics, and coauthor of the new study. It turns out, "these researchers were very good at predicting which studies would replicate," she says. "I think that's great news for science." (Harris, 8/27)
