"A new set of studies out this month suggests that as many as half of all results published in reputable journals in the social sciences can't be replicated by independent analysis. This is part of a long-running problem across many research fields most visibly in the social sciences and psychology."
"The latest work is a seven-year project called Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (Score), which has now published three studies looking at 3,900 social science papers. It found that newer papers, and those published in journals requiring extensive sharing of underlying data, were more likely to be reproduced."
"Around 49% still failed to replicate the original result. Science rarely produces exactly identical outcomes, and figuring out why is part of how knowledge accumulates."
Recent studies indicate that nearly 50% of results in social science journals are not replicable. The Score project analyzed 3,900 papers, revealing that newer studies and those with data-sharing requirements have higher reproducibility rates. Medical research also faces replication challenges due to varying patient demographics. Policymakers should be wary of claims lacking robust evidence. The distinction between reproducibility and replication is crucial, as science often yields variable outcomes. A White House executive order has drawn attention to the reproducibility crisis, but large-scale verification efforts remain scarce.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]