THE REPRODUCIBILITY PROJECT. I have posted a number of times about the need for publishing replications studies and negative results. For example, I said here: “If more papers are published, more dull but important negative results and more dull but important replication papers will be published.”

Now the Reproducibility Project has reported on its efforts to replicate 100 research findings in psychology.This article by Benedict Carey in the New York Times (August 27) reports that “more half of the findings did not hold up when retested”.

Carey quotes Jelte Wicherts, an associate professor in the department of methodology and statistics at Tilburg University in the Netherlands: “I think we knew or suspected that the literature had problems, but to see it so clearly, on such a large scale — it’s unprecedented.”

This entry was posted in Journalism, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.