Talk:Replication crisis

Fixing/expanding the article

This article could use expansion, since it should mention explanations of the replication crisis and solutions to it that have been proposed. Also, I do not think that "replication" should redirect to "reproducibility" because the two are closely related but distinct concepts - unless the "reproducibility" article discusses the difference between the two terms.

It is unclear to me that the replication crisis is "most pronounced in the field of psychology." Even if it is, mentioning replication studies in other scientific fields would be helpful. Take biomedical research, for example: "In 2011, German researchers in the drug company Bayer found in an extensive survey that more than 75% of the published findings could not be validated. In 2012, scientists at the American drug company Amgen published the results of a study in which they selected 53 key papers deemed to be “landmark” studies and tried to reproduce them. Only 6 (11%) could be confirmed" [1]. I added a couple of sentences to mention those two studies, and I also fixed up some of the grammar. I do not have time to add the proposed explanations/solutions right now, but I can dump some relevant links about proposed solutions:

• Nature: Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility
• Nature: A manifesto for reproducible science
• Asendorpf et al: Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology
• Open Science Framework
• Retraction Watch: What if scientists funded each other?
• Knuteson: Capitalist science is the solution to socialist science's replication crisis

Technophile (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)