Science has been in a "replication crisis" for a decade. Have we learned anything?
Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.
"We need a more sophisticated understanding of the replication crisis, not as a moment of realization after which we were able to move forward with higher standards, but as an ongoing rot in the scientific process that a decade of work hasn’t quite fixed."
Dr. Sheenie Ambardar, M.D.
"Researchers have discovered, over and over, that lots of findings in fields like psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics don’t hold up when other researchers try to replicate them."
“we have a system whose incentives keep pushing bad research even as we understand more about what makes for good research”
Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything? Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.
Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything?
We've learned that #openaccess to texts, data, and code facilitate replication. But you wouldn't know that from this article.
“Laypeople without a professional background in the social sciences are able to predict the replicability of social-science studies with above-chance accuracy,” the study concluded, “on the basis of nothing more than simple verbal study descriptions.”
Beth Popp Berman
This hasn't disappeared.
“many researchers have explored the replication crisis from different angles. [...] And yet blatantly shoddy work is still being published in peer-reviewed journals”
Improvements, sure but we are way off solving this problem
Bad science is still frequently published, including in top journals, but at least the error-correction processes are starting to improve.