|Part of a series on the|
The replication crisis means that many scientific experiments fail to replicate. Experiment replication attempts are part of the philosophy of good science. However, in the contemporary academic community there are powerful disincentives against them. Academic journals are generally not interested in publishing replication attempts and publications are important for the career of scientists. In contrast academic journals are interested in novel experiments with significant results.
A failure to replicate an experiment does not necessarily mean that there was anything wrong with the original experiment or that questionable research practices took place; the scientific effect found in the original experiment may be real and the failed replication may be due to chance, or due to differences in methodology. Obtaining the same or similar results using different methodology does however increase confidence in the results.
The replication crisis is most pronounced in the field of psychology. A large-scale replication project was published in 2015 of the results of replication attempts of original published psychology experiments from 2008. Among social psychology experiments, only 14/55 (25%) replicated; among cognitive psychology experiments, only 21/41 (50%) replicated.
Though notably the most famous "failed replication" study, seems to have issues with reproducibility itself. In particular there was a strong correlation with it providing a result of "failed replication" to a given study, and divergent methodology from the original.
 See also
- ↑ Closed Thinking: Without scientific competition and open debate, much psychology research goes nowhere (Science News, May 16, 2013)
- ↑ Psychology results evaporate upon further review: Surprising reports, findings with marginal statistical significance least likely to be reproduced, study concludes by Bruce Bower (2:00pm, August 27, 2015) Science News.
- ↑ Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science by B. A. Nosek et al. 28 August 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6251 Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716.
- ↑ Study that undercut psych research got it wrong Harvard Gazzette