3 ms·
I think the point is actually more the opposite. If your study failed to reproduce even with the generous "keep adding more participants until it works" method,
by ggggtez 8y ago
I think the point is actually more the opposite. If your study failed to reproduce even with the generous "keep adding more participants until it works" method, then your first study is beyond a doubt BS.
- jblow 8y agoExcept no, because rhetorically they are using the 62% figure as a good sign, rather than a bound on how bad things are.
- gweinberg 8y agoI'd say it's a good article with a bad title. my take away is that even with their generous approach only 62% of studies replicate. That means 1) probably over 1/3 of results are completely bogus and 2) of the ones that were real, about half the effects were substantially weaker than claimed.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoThis article is Science telling us that "look, over half of the high impact science we publish is actually real! Our peer review works!".