5 ms·

"If you’re a psychologist, the news has to make you a little nervous—particularly if you’re a psychologist who published an article in 2008 in any of these thre

"If you’re a psychologist, the news has to make you a little nervous—particularly if you’re a psychologist who published an article in 2008 in any of these three journals...<snip>...Because, if you did, someone is going to check your work.' Can somebody in the field comment on this statement? Is it really so out of the ordinary to attempt to reproduce work in psychology that this kind of statement is warranted?

luriel 14y ago
Yea, I would think that any sane and honest scientist would be delighted that somebody else is going to test their work. But after things like this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... I'm starting to wonder how many scientists are really more dedicated to search for the truth than search for grants and tenure.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  I'm starting to wonder how many scientists are really more dedicated to search for the truth than search for grants and tenure. Scientists would love to do proper science. Just please, please, give us a way to not starve from doing it!
nchlswu 14y ago
I only have undergrad research experience. In general, I haven't really seen focus on replicating previous results - but it depends on the work and the researcher. Most of what I've seen is a researchers who extend their own work. in doing so, they replicate their previous research and reveal other information. In this case, replication is definitely a goal, but it's focused on a researcher's own work and a byproduct of exploring a particular research problem. I've witnessed people discussing replications and discussing that they were unable to replicate X's results. Here, there were clear are efforts made to replicate results, but I've only witnessed this in an informal setting, so the results were never published. I've never seen a big push to publish results that discredited a result due to an inability to replicate results I suspect that there is little effort made after the fact unless the theory was particularly 'significant,' or if a researcher can offer a competing account. The one time I learned about replication was when two competing researchers were offering competing accounts and discrediting anothers' results. However, in these cases, there were flaws in each others' research Obviously, in a classroom setting, we have seen many cases were replication has occurred, which makes a particular theory very strong. It is rare that the published results are straight-replications, though. They are often extensions.
disgruntledphd2 14y ago
Its not out of the ordinary for people to replicate, but its mostly undergraduate and masters students that do it, as its difficult to get pure replications published. This is a terrible state of affairs, but I think that it may be an artifact of the pressures of publication right now, coupled with psychology's lack of research back in times where replication was viewed as more well respected. Personally, if someone was going to replicate my results for me without me having to do anything, I'd be delighted. People coming up for tenure and desperately needing findings might be less pleased, however.

luriel 14y ago

Yea, I would think that any sane and honest scientist would be delighted that somebody else is going to test their work. But after things like this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... I'm starting to wonder how many scientists are really more dedicated to search for the truth than search for grants and tenure.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
I'm starting to wonder how many scientists are really more dedicated to search for the truth than search for grants and tenure. Scientists would love to do proper science. Just please, please, give us a way to not starve from doing it!

nchlswu 14y ago

I only have undergrad research experience. In general, I haven't really seen focus on replicating previous results - but it depends on the work and the researcher. Most of what I've seen is a researchers who extend their own work. in doing so, they replicate their previous research and reveal other information. In this case, replication is definitely a goal, but it's focused on a researcher's own work and a byproduct of exploring a particular research problem. I've witnessed people discussing replications and discussing that they were unable to replicate X's results. Here, there were clear are efforts made to replicate results, but I've only witnessed this in an informal setting, so the results were never published. I've never seen a big push to publish results that discredited a result due to an inability to replicate results I suspect that there is little effort made after the fact unless the theory was particularly 'significant,' or if a researcher can offer a competing account. The one time I learned about replication was when two competing researchers were offering competing accounts and discrediting anothers' results. However, in these cases, there were flaws in each others' research Obviously, in a classroom setting, we have seen many cases were replication has occurred, which makes a particular theory very strong. It is rare that the published results are straight-replications, though. They are often extensions.

disgruntledphd2 14y ago

Its not out of the ordinary for people to replicate, but its mostly undergraduate and masters students that do it, as its difficult to get pure replications published. This is a terrible state of affairs, but I think that it may be an artifact of the pressures of publication right now, coupled with psychology's lack of research back in times where replication was viewed as more well respected. Personally, if someone was going to replicate my results for me without me having to do anything, I'd be delighted. People coming up for tenure and desperately needing findings might be less pleased, however.