7 ms·
Failure to replicate at that rate was an alarm bell indicating that studies were less robust and reproducible than previously assumed. It's not entirely "normal
by pc2g4d 9y ago
Failure to replicate at that rate was an alarm bell indicating that studies were less robust and reproducible than previously assumed. It's not entirely "normal" science, as a high rate of failure in replication can be a symptom of publication bias and everything else mentioned in "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- forapurpose 9y ago> It's not entirely "normal" science, as a high rate of failure in replication ... What is a high rate? What is a normal rate?
- ulucs 9y ago5%, which the p value ensures if it's not hacked (or the papers go through selection effects)
- forapurpose 9y agoThat's the statistical theory, but what is the reality? I would be very surprised if 95% of results are accurate. We would need a study of reproducibility across other fields - and of course a study that reproduces the Reproducibility Project. > it's not hacked (or the papers go through selection effects) There are many, many reasons, besides 'hacking' or selection effects, for results that aren't 100% accurate.