For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
65
views
33
references
 Top references
cited by
106
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      698
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?

      Author(s):
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Print):
      Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
      Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Investigating Variation in Replicability

          Richard A. Klein, Kate A Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello … (2014)
          Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.
          Article 0 comments Cited 315 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

            Daniele Fanelli (2010)
            The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.
            Article 0 comments Cited 221 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

              Dénes Szücs, John P. A. Ioannidis (2017)
              We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64–1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11–0.42) for nonsignificant results. Median power to detect small, medium, and large effects was 0.12, 0.44, and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. This is so because sample sizes have remained small. Assuming similar true effect sizes in both disciplines, power was lower in cognitive neuroscience than in psychology. Journal impact factors negatively correlated with power. Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.
              Article 0 comments Cited 219 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                Abbreviated Title: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
                Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                ISSN (Print): 0027-8424
                ISSN (Electronic): 1091-6490
                Publication date Created: March 13 2018
                Publication date (Print): March 13 2018
                Volume: 115
                Issue: 11
                Pages: 2628-2631
                Article
                DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
                PMC ID: 5856498
                PubMed ID: 29531051
                SO-VID: bf9527d3-92c5-4d42-9e17-e5cbfa21e964
                Copyright © © 2018
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content698

                See all similar

                Cited by103

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors581

                See all reference authors