Science has always relied on reproducibility to build confidence in experimental results. Now, the most comprehensive investigation ever done about the rate and predictors of reproducibility in social and cognitive sciences has found that regardless of the analytic method or criteria used, fewer than half of the original findings were successfully replicated. While a failure to reproduce does not necessarily mean the original report was incorrect, the results suggest that more rigorous methods are long overdue.
Matthew J. Page, David Moher, Fiona Fidler, Julian P. T. Higgins, Sue Brennan, Neal Haddaway, Daniel G. Hamilton, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch, Joanne E. McKenzie
Kelly D. Cobey, Christophe A. Fehlmann, Marina Christ Franco, Ana Patricia Ayala, Lindsey Sikora, Danielle B. Rice, Chenchen Xu, John P A Ioannidis, Manoj M. Lalu, Alixe Ménard, Andrew Neitzel, Bea Nguyen, Nino Tsertsvadze, David Moher
Kelly D. Cobey, Christophe A. Fehlmann, Marina Christ Franco, Ana Patricia Ayala, Lindsey Sikora, Danielle B. Rice, Chenchen Xu, John P A Ioannidis, Manoj M. Lalu, Alixe Ménard, Andrew Neitzel, Phuong Minh Nguyen, Nino Tsertsvadze, David Moher
Kelly D. Cobey, Christophe A. Fehlmann, Marina Christ Franco, Ana Patricia Ayala, Lindsey Sikora, Danielle B. Rice, Chenchen Xu, John P A Ioannidis, Manoj M. Lalu, Alixe Ménard, Andrew Neitzel, Bea Nguyen, Nino Tsertsvadze, David Moher
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.