Try again | The Economist

abernard102@gmail.com 2015-08-31

Summary:

"NO MATTER how exciting a newly published scientific paper is, or how respectable its authors are, the research it describes is of little value if its results cannot be reproduced by others. Yet for a study to be published in a journal, it need only be peer-reviewed by a few independent workers in the field and approved by an editor. If the author’s methods and conclusions seem reasonable to them, it can enter the academic literature and often go unchallenged by replication—for verifying someone else’s work is far less glamorous than coming up with your own findings. As a consequence, researchers might reasonably wonder how much of their discipline’s literature they can actually rely on. And now a team of psychologists has provided an answer, at least for their own particular field: not as much as you might hope. Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia, the project’s co-ordinator, arranged for numerous colleagues (270 of them) to replicate parts of 100 studies carried out in 2008. The results have just been published in Science ..."

Link:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21662619-large-study-replicates-psychology-experiments-not-most-their-results-try?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/tryagain

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.comment oa.studies oa.psychology oa.data oa.reproducibility oa.ssh

Date tagged:

08/31/2015, 21:06

Date published:

08/31/2015, 17:06