Reproducibility Project

The Reproducibility Project: Psychology was a crowdsourced collaboration of 270 contributing authors to repeat 100 published experimental and correlational psychological studies. This project was led by the Center for Open Science and its co-founder, Brian Nosek, who started the project in November 2011. The results of this collaboration were published in August 2015. Reproducibility is the ability to produce a copy or duplicate, in this case it is the ability to replicate the results of the original studies. The project has illustrated the growing problem of failed reproducibility in social science. This project has started a movement that has spread through the science world with the expanded testing of the reproducibility of published works.[1]

Reproducibility Project

Brian Nosek of University of Virginia and colleagues sought out to replicate 100 different studies that all were published in 2008.[2] The project pulled these studies from three different journals, Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, published in 2008 to see if they could get the same results as the initial findings. In their initial publications 97 of these 100 studies claimed to have significant results. The group went through extensive measures to remain true to the original studies, including consultation with the original authors. Even with all the extra steps taken to ensure the same conditions of the original 97 studies, only 35 (36.1%) of the studies replicated, and if they did replicate their effects were often smaller than the original effects. The authors emphasized that the findings reflect a problem that affects all of science and not just psychology, and that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology.

Statistical relevance

Failure to replicate can have different causes. The first is a type II error, which is when you fail to reject the null hypothesis when it is false.[3] This can be classified as a false negative. A type I error is the rejection of a null hypothesis even if it is true, so this is considered a false positive.[4]

Center for Open Science

The Center for Open Science was founded by Brian Nosek and Jeff Spies in 2013 with a $5.25 million grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.[5] They have built a team that today has about 50 people. The goal of the group is to help increase the openness, integrity and reproducibility of scientific research. The COS oversees much larger groups that are helping with the COS's mission.[6] The group is made up of multiple different kinds of scientists which include astronomers, biologists, chemists, computer scientists, education researchers, engineers, neuroscientists, and psychologists.[7] By 2017 the Foundation had provided an additional $10 million in funding.[5]

Outcome and importance

There have been multiple implications of the Reproducibility Project. People all over have started to question the legitimacy of scientific studies that have been published in esteemed journals. Journals typically only publish articles with big effect sizes that reject the null hypothesis. Leading into the huge issue of people re-doing studies that have already found to fail, but not knowing because there is no record of the failed studies, which will lead to more false positives to be published. It is unknown if any of the original study authors committed fraud in publishing their projects, but some of the authors of the original studies are part of the 270 contributors of this project.

One earlier study found that around $28 billion worth of research per year in medical fields is non-reproducible.[8]

The results of the Reproducibility Project might also affect public trust in psychology.[9][10] Lay people who learned about the low replication rate found in the Reproducibility Project subsequently reported a lower trust in psychology, compared to people who were told that a high number of the studies had replicated.[11].[12]

See also

References
  1. Jarrett, Christian (27 August 2015). "This is what happened when psychologists tried to replicate 100 previously published findings". Research Digest. BPS Research Digest. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
  2. Weir, Kristen. "A reproducibility crisis?". American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  3. "type II error". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  4. "type I error". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  5. Apple, Sam (22 January 2017). "The Young Billionaire Behind the War on Bad Science". Wired.
  6. Cohoon, Johanna. "COS | About Our Mission". centerforopenscience.org. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  7. Cohoon, Johanna. "COS | About Our Team". centerforopenscience.org. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  8. Freedman, L. P.; Cockburn, I. M.; Simcoe, T. S. (2015). "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research". PLOS Biology. 13 (6): e1002165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165. PMC 4461318. PMID 26057340.
  9. Wingen, Tobias; Berkessel, Jana B.; Englich, Birte (24 October 2019). "No Replication, No Trust? How Low Replicability Influences Trust in Psychology". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 11 (4): 454–463. doi:10.1177/1948550619877412. ISSN 1948-5506.
  10. Anvari, Farid; Lakens, Daniël (19 November 2019). "The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science". Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology. 0 (3): 266–286. doi:10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822. ISSN 2374-3603.
  11. "The Replication Crisis Lowers The Public's Trust In Psychology — But Can That Trust Be Built Back Up?". Research Digest. 31 October 2019. Retrieved 30 November 2019.
  12. Wingen, Tobias; Berkessel, Jana B.; Englich, Birte (24 October 2019). "No Replication, No Trust? How Low Replicability Influences Trust in Psychology". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 11 (4): 454–463. doi:10.1177/1948550619877412. ISSN 1948-5506.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.