the replication crisis Flashcards
open science collaboration
This study highlights the challenges facing the reproducibility of scientific findings, particularly in psychological research. While reproducibility is a cornerstone of science, the large-scale replication effort by Aarts et al. found that only about one-third to one-half of the original findings from 100 studies could be replicated successfully. This substantial decline in effect sizes and replication success emphasizes the need to critically evaluate the robustness of scientific claims.
The results suggest that replication success is more strongly influenced by the strength of the original evidence (e.g., lower p-values and larger effect sizes) than by the expertise or characteristics of the replication teams. Despite high-powered designs and rigorous methodological fidelity, many replication efforts yielded weaker evidence, underscoring the role of random or systematic errors, as well as the potential influence of questionable research practices, such as selective reporting and analysis.
The study also sheds light on the tension between innovation and replication in the scientific community. While innovation drives discovery and exploration of new ideas, replication ensures reliability and builds the foundation for scientific progress. However, current incentives in academia often prioritize novel findings over replication studies, contributing to the replication crisis.
This work demonstrates that reproducibility is not merely a technical issue but a systemic challenge that requires cultural and structural changes in how research is conducted, evaluated, and published. Efforts to promote transparency, such as pre-registration, open data, and the publication of null findings, are vital steps to address this crisis. Ultimately, balancing the pursuit of innovative ideas with rigorous replication efforts is essential to strengthen the credibility and integrity of scientific research
why most studies are flase paper
Loannidis 2005-
In his 2005 essay, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” John P. A. Ioannidis examines factors contributing to the unreliability of research findings across various scientific fields.
PLOS
Key Factors Influencing Research Reliability:
Study Power and Effect Size:
Studies with small sample sizes or those investigating minor effect sizes are more susceptible to producing false-positive results.
Multiplicity of Testing:
Exploring numerous relationships without appropriate adjustments increases the likelihood of false findings.
Flexibility in Study Design:
Excessive flexibility in research methodologies, definitions, and analytical approaches can introduce bias, leading to non-reproducible results.
Financial and Other Interests:
Studies influenced by strong financial or ideological interests may be more prone to bias, affecting the validity of their findings.
Publication Bias:
The tendency to publish positive results over negative or null findings skews the literature, overrepresenting false-positive outcomes.
Implications:
Ioannidis argues that due to these factors, a significant proportion of published research findings may be false.
He emphasizes the necessity for improved study designs, increased transparency, and rigorous replication to enhance the credibility of scientific research.
This essay has profoundly impacted discussions on research methodology and the importance of reproducibility in science
is the replication crisis overblown?
