4 ms·
That's not the only issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_replication_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psych
by wisty 8y ago
That's not the only issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_replication_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_...
> A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[38] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoThat makes perfect sense. The published studies are a sample of 'study-space' and that have outlier significance. Replicate published studies and their significance likely returns to the norm. Journals are filters to cherry-pick 'study space'. By the way they're constituted, they publish new studies that have overstated significance.
- 2019ideas 8y agoCauses of the replication crisis puts 0 blame on academia. This is an Academia caused crisis.
- Balgair 8y agoVeritasium has a good overview of the replication issues in much pf modern science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q