Replication Crisis - Revision history

Admin at 16:36, 8 September 2019

2019-09-08T16:36:12Z

Show changes

Admin at 22:07, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T22:07:31Z

Admin at 10:12, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T10:12:45Z

Admin at 07:03, 3 September 2019

2019-09-03T07:03:33Z

Admin at 20:14, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T20:14:20Z

Admin at 20:05, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T20:05:08Z

Admin at 16:20, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T16:20:36Z

Admin at 16:02, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T16:02:42Z

Admin at 16:01, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T16:01:15Z

Show changes

Admin at 15:03, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T15:03:10Z

Show changes

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 === Hard Sciences ===
-As opposed to the social and life sciences many agree that the “hard sciences” – physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. – will not be touched by this crisis. Nevertheless there seem to be quite a few problems there as well. „Even physics has been affected, as William Wilson notes. “Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.” See [http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmic-inflation-bicep2-results.html this about the former] and [http://press.cern/press-releases/2011/09/opera-experiment-reports-anomaly-flight-time-neutrinos-cern-gran-sasso this about the latter].”<ref>[ https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/19/replication-crisis-in-science-95394/ The replication crisis in science has just begun. It will be big.]
+As opposed to the social and life sciences many agree that the “hard sciences” – physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. – will not be touched by this crisis. Nevertheless there seem to be quite a few problems there as well. „Even physics has been affected, as William Wilson notes. “Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.” See [http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmic-inflation-bicep2-results.html this about the former] and [http://press.cern/press-releases/2011/09/opera-experiment-reports-anomaly-flight-time-neutrinos-cern-gran-sasso this about the latter].”<ref>[ https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/19/replication-crisis-in-science-95394/ The replication crisis in science has just begun. It will be big.] by Larry Kummer, Editor Science & Nature 19 April 2016 on Fabius Maximus website, here referring to W.Wilson – Scientific Regress (see Further readings)</ref>
 === Natural constants ===
-One of the pillars of physics and all sciences based on the laws described in physics is the constancy of the natural constants. This constancy is a general assumption because it can principally not been proven. One can only state that they have been constant since humans are able to measure them, which is an extremely short time span compared to the age of the universe.<br/> Nevertheless there is good reason to doubt even this basic assumption of the physical sciences.„At the end of 1998 the CODATA even decided to increase the uncertainty of the accepted value for the gravitational constant from 128 ppm to 1500 ppm. This remarkable step of increasing the uncertainty instead of decreasing was made to reflect the discrepancies between recent experiments, which span a wide range of more than 0.7&nbsp;%.”<ref>Ulf Kleinevoß: Bestimmung der Newtonschen Gravitationskonstanten, Dissertation Januar 2002, Wuppertal, S.1, Abstract;
+One of the pillars of physics and all sciences based on the laws described in physics is the assumption of the constancy of the natural constants. This constancy is a general assumption because it can principally not been proven. One can only state that they have been constant since humans are able to measure them, which is an extremely short time span compared to the age of the universe.<br/> Nevertheless there is good reason to doubt even this basic assumption of the physical sciences.„At the end of 1998 the CODATA even decided to increase the uncertainty of the accepted value for the gravitational constant from 128 ppm to 1500 ppm. This remarkable step of increasing the uncertainty instead of decreasing was made to reflect the discrepancies between recent experiments, which span a wide range of more than 0.7 %.”<ref>Ulf Kleinevoß: Bestimmung der Newtonschen Gravitationskonstanten, Dissertation Januar 2002, Wuppertal, S.1, Abstract;
 [http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fb08/diss2002/kleinevoss/d080201.pdf]</ref><br/> And in his work “The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry” biologist and philosopher [[Rupert_Sheldrake|Rupert Sheldrake]]<ref>Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry; London 2012, Hodder& Stoughton, ISBN 978 1 444 72795 1. Chapter 3: Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?</ref> discusses this problem and gives lots of examples showing that the fundamental constants may not be as eternal as was thought but object to change by time. He prefers to see the “constants” more as habits of nature than as eternal laws. Sheldrake points out that the fundamental physical constants are artificially held as constant by defining them to be so and by reducing all measurements to the mean and eliminating strongly deviating measurings from the count. So as a matter of fact scientific measurings of the constants constantly produce quite different results, which are collected and regulated by the ''Committee on Data for Science and Technology'' ([https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/CODATA CODATA]) to always be constant as by definition.<ref>[https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/Physikalische_Konstante] and Sheldrake, Science Delusion</ref>
@@ Line 184: / Line 183: @@
 <blockquote>replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only falsified. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist Peter Lipton called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref name=Munafo2018>{{cite journal|last1=Munafò|first1=Marcus R.|last2=Smith|first2=George Davey|title=Robust research needs many lines of evidence|journal=Nature|volume=553|issue=7689|pages=399–401|date=January 23, 2018|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3|pmid=29368721|bibcode=2018Natur.553..399M}}</ref></blockquote>
 == Further reading ==
@@ Line 196: / Line 191: @@
 *[https://www.displayr.com/what-is-the-replication-crisis/ What is the Replication Crisis?] by Tim Bock. – Being a short summary of what the replication crisis is about.
 *[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False] by John P. A. Ioannidis, Public Library of Science Medicine, 30 August 2005.
 *[https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/19/replication-crisis-in-science-95394/ The replication crisis in science has just begun. It will be big.] by Larry Kummer, Editor Science & Nature 19 April 2016 on Fabius Maximus website.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Wikipedia2EN|Replication_Crisis | Replication Crisis|31.8.2019}}
 '''This article is closely connected to the article on the [[Decline_Effect|Decline Effect]], which is part of this crisis. For further explanation and material please see also there.'''
@@ Line 74: / Line 76: @@
 === Hydrology ===
-A 2019 study in ''Scientific Data'' found that a small number of articles in hydrology and water resources journals could be reproduced due to data unavailability. The study "estimated, with 95% confidence, that results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all 1,989 articles".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stagge|first=James H.|last2=Rosenberg|first2=David E.|last3=Abdallah|first3=Adel M.|last4=Akbar|first4=Hadia|last5=Attallah|first5=Nour A.|last6=James|first6=Ryan|date=2019-02-26|title=Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources|journal=Scientific Data|language=en|volume=6|pages=190030|doi=10.1038/sdata.2019.30|pmid=30806638|pmc=6390703|issn=2052-4463|bibcode=2019NatSD...690030S}}</ref><ref>[https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201930#f2 https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201930#f2]</ref><ref>[https://replicationnetwork.com/2019/03/01/surveying-reproducibility/ https://replicationnetwork.com/2019/03/01/surveying-reproducibility/]</ref><br/>This study mainly relates to the quality of documentation of origninal material which is obviously only given scarcely or not at all. With no raw data available the factual validity of the scientific articles cannot be estimated, but the scientific non-reproducability is not proven thereby.
+A 2019 study in ''Scientific Data'' found that a small number of articles in hydrology and water resources journals could be reproduced due to data unavailability. The study "estimated, with 95% confidence, that results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all 1,989 articles".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stagge|first=James H.|last2=Rosenberg|first2=David E.|last3=Abdallah|first3=Adel M.|last4=Akbar|first4=Hadia|last5=Attallah|first5=Nour A.|last6=James|first6=Ryan|date=2019-02-26|title=Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources|journal=Scientific Data|language=en|volume=6|pages=190030|doi=10.1038/sdata.2019.30|pmid=30806638|pmc=6390703|issn=2052-4463|bibcode=2019NatSD...690030S}}</ref><ref>[https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201930#f2 https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201930#f2]</ref><ref>[https://replicationnetwork.com/2019/03/01/surveying-reproducibility/ https://replicationnetwork.com/2019/03/01/surveying-reproducibility/]</ref><br/> This study mainly relates to the quality of documentation of origninal material which is obviously only given scarcely or not at all. With no raw data available the factual validity of the scientific articles cannot be estimated, but the scientific non-reproducability is not proven thereby.
 === Hard Sciences ===
@@ Line 81: / Line 83: @@
   by Larry Kummer, Editor Science & Nature 19 April 2016 on Fabius Maximus website, here referring to W.Wilson – Scinetific Regress (see Further readings)</ref>
-===Natural constants===
+=== Natural constants ===
-One of the pillars of physics and all sciences based on the laws described in physics is the constancy of the natural constants. This constancy is a general assumption because it can principally not been proven. One can only state that they have been constant since humans are able to measure them, which is an extremely short time span compared to the age of the universe.</br>Nevertheless there is good reason to doubt even this basic assumption of the physical sciences.„At the end of 1998 the CODATA even decided to increase the uncertainty of the accepted value for the gravitational constant from 128 ppm to 1500 ppm. This remarkable step of increasing the uncertainty instead of decreasing was made to reflect the discrepancies between recent experiments, which span a wide range of more than 0.7 %.”<ref>Ulf Kleinevoß: Bestimmung der Newtonschen Gravitationskonstanten, Dissertation Januar 2002, Wuppertal, S.1, Abstract;
+One of the pillars of physics and all sciences based on the laws described in physics is the constancy of the natural constants. This constancy is a general assumption because it can principally not been proven. One can only state that they have been constant since humans are able to measure them, which is an extremely short time span compared to the age of the universe.<br/> Nevertheless there is good reason to doubt even this basic assumption of the physical sciences.„At the end of 1998 the CODATA even decided to increase the uncertainty of the accepted value for the gravitational constant from 128 ppm to 1500 ppm. This remarkable step of increasing the uncertainty instead of decreasing was made to reflect the discrepancies between recent experiments, which span a wide range of more than 0.7&nbsp;%.”<ref>Ulf Kleinevoß: Bestimmung der Newtonschen Gravitationskonstanten, Dissertation Januar 2002, Wuppertal, S.1, Abstract;
-[http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fb08/diss2002/kleinevoss/d080201.pdf]</ref></br>And in his work “The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry” biologist and philosopher [[Rupert Sheldrake]]<ref>Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry; London 2012, Hodder& Stoughton, ISBN 978 1 444 72795 1. Chapter 3: Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?</ref> discusses this problem and gives lots of examples showing that the fundamental constants may not be as eternal as was thought but object to change by time. He prefers to see the “constants” more as habits of nature than as eternal laws. Sheldrake points out that the fundamental physical constants are artificially held as constant by defining them to be so and by reducing all measurements to the mean and eliminating strongly deviating measurings from the count. So as a matter of fact scientific measurings of the constants constantly produce quite different results, which are collected and regulated by the ''Committee on Data for Science and Technology'' ([https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/CODATA CODATA]) to always be constant as by definition.<ref>[https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/Physikalische_Konstante] and Sheldrake, Science Delusion</ref>
+[http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fb08/diss2002/kleinevoss/d080201.pdf]</ref><br/> And in his work “The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry” biologist and philosopher [[Rupert_Sheldrake|Rupert Sheldrake]]<ref>Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry; London 2012, Hodder& Stoughton, ISBN 978 1 444 72795 1. Chapter 3: Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?</ref> discusses this problem and gives lots of examples showing that the fundamental constants may not be as eternal as was thought but object to change by time. He prefers to see the “constants” more as habits of nature than as eternal laws. Sheldrake points out that the fundamental physical constants are artificially held as constant by defining them to be so and by reducing all measurements to the mean and eliminating strongly deviating measurings from the count. So as a matter of fact scientific measurings of the constants constantly produce quite different results, which are collected and regulated by the ''Committee on Data for Science and Technology'' ([https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/CODATA CODATA]) to always be constant as by definition.<ref>[https://howlingpixel.com/i-de/Physikalische_Konstante] and Sheldrake, Science Delusion</ref>
 == Causes of the crisis ==
-===Bad Science===
+=== Bad Science ===
-The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair Sokal affair] and the discussion in its wake has shown clearly that there is a major problem of not distinguishing between real and fake science.<ref>Peter Boghossian, Ed.D. (aka Peter Boyle, Ed.D.), James Lindsay, Ph.D. (aka, Jamie Lindsay, Ph.D.): The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies. SKEPTIC, 19.05.2017.[http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-o]; Alexander Durin: Fehler im System mancher Wissenschaften. Telepolis, Heise, 02.03.2014. [https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Fehler-im-System-mancher-Wissenschaften-3502557.html]; Alan D. Sokal: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text 46/47:217-252, 1996. [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html].</ref></br>The editor of the prominent medical journal ''Lancet''<ref>Richard Horton – Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? In: The Lancet VOLUME 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, APRIL 11, 2015;
+The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair Sokal affair] and the discussion in its wake has shown clearly that there is a major problem of not distinguishing between real and fake science.<ref>Peter Boghossian, Ed.D. (aka Peter Boyle, Ed.D.), James Lindsay, Ph.D. (aka, Jamie Lindsay, Ph.D.): The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies. SKEPTIC, 19.05.2017.[http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-o]; Alexander Durin: Fehler im System mancher Wissenschaften. Telepolis, Heise, 02.03.2014. [https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Fehler-im-System-mancher-Wissenschaften-3502557.html]; Alan D. Sokal: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text 46/47:217-252, 1996. [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html].</ref><br/> The editor of the prominent medical journal ''Lancet''<ref>Richard Horton – Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? In: The Lancet VOLUME 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, APRIL 11, 2015;
 [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext]</ref> Richard Horton writes about “apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour” and “bad scientific practices” when he points out that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” As the editor of the most important medical journals he is in a position to recognize the problem.
@@ Line 175: / Line 177: @@
 In July 2016 the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research made €3 million available for replication studies. The funding is for replication based on reanalysis of existing data and replication by collecting and analysing new data. Funding is available in the areas of social sciences, health research and healthcare innovation.<ref>{{cite web|title=NWO makes 3 million available for Replication Studies pilot|url=http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2016/nwo-makes-3-million-available-for-replication-studies-pilot.html|website=NWO|accessdate=2 August 2016}}</ref>
-In 2013 the Laura and John Arnold Foundation funded the launch of [[Reproducibility_Project|The Center for Open Science]] with a $5.25 million grant and by 2017 had provided an additional $10 million in funding.<ref name="Wired2017">{{cite news|last1=Apple|first1=Sam|title=The Young Billionaire Behind the War on Bad Science|url=https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/|work=Wired|date=January 22, 2017}}</ref> It also funded the launch of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford at Stanford University run by [[John_Ioannidis|John Ioannidis]] and Steven Goodman to study ways to improve scientific research.<ref name="Wired2017" /> It also provided funding for the AllTrials initiative led in part by [[Ben_Goldacre|Ben Goldacre]].<ref name="Wired2017" />
+In 2013 the Laura and John Arnold Foundation funded the launch of [[Reproducibility_Project|The Center for Open Science]] with a $5.25 million grant and by 2017 had provided an additional $10 million in funding.<ref name="Wired2017">{{cite news|last1=Apple|first1=Sam|title=The Young Billionaire Behind the War on Bad Science|url=https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/|work=Wired|date=January 22, 2017}}</ref> It also funded the launch of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford at Stanford University run by [[John_Ioannidis|John Ioannidis]] and Steven Goodman to study ways to improve scientific research.<ref name="Wired2017" /> It also provided funding for the AllTrials initiative led in part by Ben Goldacre.<ref name="Wired2017" />
 === Emphasize triangulation, not just replication ===
@@ Line 181: / Line 183: @@
 Marcus R. Munafò and George Davey Smith argue, in a piece published by ''[[Nature_(journal)|Nature]]'', that research should emphasize triangulation, not just replication. They claim that,
-{{quote|replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist [[Peter Lipton]] called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis|url = http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/82/1/1|journal = Psychological Bulletin|pages = 1–20|volume = 82|issue = 1|doi = 10.1037/h0076157|language = en-US|first = Anthony G.|last = Greenwald|year = 1975}}</ref>}}
+<blockquote>replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only falsified. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist Peter Lipton called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref name=Munafo2018>{{cite journal|last1=Munafò|first1=Marcus R.|last2=Smith|first2=George Davey|title=Robust research needs many lines of evidence|journal=Nature|volume=553|issue=7689|pages=399–401|date=January 23, 2018|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3|pmid=29368721|bibcode=2018Natur.553..399M}}</ref></blockquote>
 == References ==
@@ Line 192: / Line 194: @@
 *{{cite book |last1=Harris |first1=Richard |title=Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions |date=2017 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |isbn=9780465097906}}
 *[https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress Scientific Regress] – William A. Wilson in First Things, May 2016
 *[https://www.displayr.com/what-is-the-replication-crisis/ What is the Replication Crisis?] by Tim Bock. – Being a short summary of what the replication crisis is about.
 *[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False] by John P. A. Ioannidis, Public Library of Science Medicine, 30 August 2005.
-*[https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/19/replication-crisis-in-science-95394/ The replication crisis in science has just begun. It will be big.]  by Larry Kummer, Editor Science & Nature 19 April 2016 on Fabius Maximus website.
+*[https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/04/19/replication-crisis-in-science-95394/ The replication crisis in science has just begun. It will be big.] by Larry Kummer, Editor Science & Nature 19 April 2016 on Fabius Maximus website.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:03, 3 September 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{~~Wikipedia1_EN~~\|Replication_Crisis \| Replication Crisis\|31.8.2019}}	+	{{Wikipedia2EN\|Replication_Crisis \| Replication Crisis\|31.8.2019}}
	'''This article is closely connected to the article on the [[Decline_Effect\|Decline Effect]], which is part of this crisis. For further explanation and material please see also there.'''		'''This article is closely connected to the article on the [[Decline_Effect\|Decline Effect]], which is part of this crisis. For further explanation and material please see also there.'''

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''This article is closely connected to the article on the [[Decline_Effect|Decline Effect]], which is part of this crisis. For further explanation and material please see also there.'''
-The '''replication crisis''' (or '''replicability crisis''' or '''reproducibility crisis''') is an ongoing (2019) methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social and life sciences most severely.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1038/515009a| title = Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis'| journal = Nature| volume = 515| issue = 7525| pages = 9| year = 2014| last1 = Schooler | first1 = J. W.| pmid=25373639| bibcode = 2014Natur.515....9S}}</ref><ref name="Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant">{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Noah|title=Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-02/why-statistical-significance-is-often-insignificant|website=Bloomberg|accessdate=7 November 2017}}</ref> The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1177/1745691612465253| title = Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?| journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science| volume = 7| issue = 6| pages = 528–530| year = 2012| last1=Pashler|first1=Harold |last2=Wagenmakers | first2=Eric Jan| pmid=26168108}}</ref> as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in metascience.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fidler |first1=Fiona |last2=Wilcox |first2=John |title=Reproducibility of Scientific Results |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/#MetaScieEstaMoniEvalReprCris |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |accessdate=19 May 2019 |date=2018}}</ref>
+The '''replication crisis''' (or '''replicability crisis''' or '''reproducibility crisis''') is an ongoing (2019) methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social and life sciences most severely,<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1038/515009a| title = Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis'| journal = Nature| volume = 515| issue = 7525| pages = 9| year = 2014| last1 = Schooler | first1 = J. W.| pmid=25373639| bibcode = 2014Natur.515....9S}}</ref><ref name="Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant">{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Noah|title=Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-02/why-statistical-significance-is-often-insignificant|website=Bloomberg|accessdate=7 November 2017}}</ref> whereas the hard sciences are still reluctant to face the problem in the first place and mainly don’t even use double blinding in their research.<ref>Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion – Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry; London 2012, Hodder& Stoughton, ISBN 978 1 444 72795 1. Chapter 11. Illusions of Objectivity.</ref> The crisis has long-standing roots. The phrase was coined in the early 2010s<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1177/1745691612465253| title = Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?| journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science| volume = 7| issue = 6| pages = 528–530| year = 2012| last1=Pashler|first1=Harold |last2=Wagenmakers | first2=Eric Jan| pmid=26168108}}</ref> as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in metascience.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fidler |first1=Fiona |last2=Wilcox |first2=John |title=Reproducibility of Scientific Results |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/#MetaScieEstaMoniEvalReprCris |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |accessdate=19 May 2019 |date=2018}}</ref>
 Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,<ref>Staddon, John (2017) Scientific Method: How science works, fails to work or pretends to work.  Taylor and Francis.</ref> the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology (and in particular, social psychology) and in medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, and to attempt to determine both the reliability of the results, and, if found to be unreliable, the reasons for the failure of replication.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt|title=The Crisis in Social Psychology That Isn't|author=Gary Marcus|publisher=The New Yorker|date=May 1, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off|title=The Truth Wears Off|author=Jonah Lehrer|publisher=The New Yorker|date=December 13, 2010}}</ref>
@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 Marcus R. Munafò and George Davey Smith argue, in a piece published by ''[[Nature_(journal)|Nature]]'', that research should emphasize triangulation, not just replication. They claim that,
-{{quote|replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist [[Peter Lipton]] called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Amrhein|first1=Valentin|last2=Korner-Nievergelt|first2=Fränzi|last3=Roth|first3=Tobias|title=The earth is flat (p > 0.05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research|journal=PeerJ|date=2017|volume=5|page=e3544|doi=10.7717/peerj.3544|pmid=28698825|pmc=5502092}}</ref>}}
+{{quote|replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist [[Peter Lipton]] called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis|url = http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/82/1/1|journal = Psychological Bulletin|pages = 1–20|volume = 82|issue = 1|doi = 10.1037/h0076157|language = en-US|first = Anthony G.|last = Greenwald|year = 1975}}</ref>}}
 == References ==
@@ Line 189: / Line 189: @@
 == Further reading ==
 *{{cite web |last1=Bastian |first1=Hilda |title=Reproducibility Crisis Timeline: Milestones in Tackling Research Reliability |url=https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/12/05/reproducibility-crisis-timeline-milestones-in-tackling-research-reliability/ |website=Absolutely Maybe |accessdate=5 June 2019 |date=5 December 2016}}
 *{{cite book |last1=Harris |first1=Richard |title=Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions |date=2017 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |isbn=9780465097906}}

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 === Medicine ===
 Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003, with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research|last=Ioannidis JA|date=13 July 2005|journal=JAMA|volume=294|issue=2|pages=218–228|doi=10.1001/jama.294.2.218|pmid=16014596}}</ref> The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Scientific data audit—A key management tool|first=J. Leslie|last=Glick|date=1 January 1992|volume=2|issue=3|pages=153–168|doi=10.1080/08989629208573811|journal=Accountability in Research}}</ref> In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be replicated.<ref name="Begley-Lee2012">{{Cite journal|last1=Begley |first1=C. G. |last2=Ellis |first2=L. M. |year=2012 |title=Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research |journal=Nature |volume=483 |issue=7391 |pages=531–533|doi=10.1038/483531a |pmid=22460880 |bibcode=2012Natur.483..531B }}</ref><ref name="Begley2013">{{Cite journal|last=Begley |first=C. G. |year=2013 |title=Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work |journal=Nature |volume=497 |issue=7450 |pages=433–434|doi=10.1038/497433a |bibcode=2013Natur.497..433B }}</ref>
@@ Line 101: / Line 103: @@
 === Insufficient control ===
-The crisis of science's quality control system is affecting the use of science for policy. This is the thesis of a recent work by a group of STS scholars, who identify in 'evidence based (or informed) policy' a point of present tension.<ref name="FUTURES1">{{Cite journal|last1=Saltelli |first1=A. |last2=Funtowicz |first2=S. |year=2017 |title=What is science's crisis really about? |journal=Futures |volume=91 |pages=5–11 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010}}</ref><ref name="Benessia-al2016">{{Cite book|last1=Benessia |first1=A. |last2=Funtowicz |first2=S. |last3=Giampietro |first3=M. |last4=Guimarães Pereira |first4=A. |last5=Ravetz |first5=J. |last6=Saltelli |first6=A. |last7=Strand |first7=R. |last8=van der Sluijs |first8=J. |year=2016 |title=The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge |publisher=Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University|title-link=The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge }}</ref><ref name="Letter">{{cite magazine|first1=Andrea |last1=Saltelli|first2=Jerome R. |last2=Ravetz|first3=Silvio |last3=Funtowicz|lastauthoramp=y|url=https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg23030791-600-7-a-new-community-for-science/|title=A new community for science|magazine=New Scientist|issue=3079|p=52|date=25 June 2016}}</ref><ref name="FUTURES2" /> Economist Noah Smith suggests that a factor in the crisis has been the overvaluing of research in academia and undervaluing of teaching ability, especially in fields with few major recent discoveries.<ref name="Academic signaling and the post-truth world">{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Noah|title=Academic signaling and the post-truth world|url=http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/academic-signaling-and-post-truth-world.html|website=Noahpinion|publisher=Stony Brook University|accessdate=5 November 2017|date=2016-12-14}}</ref>In the journal ''Science'' article “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”<ref> [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full John Bohannon: Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?], Science  04 Oct 2013: Vol. 342, Issue 6154, pp. 60-65;  DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60</ref> author John Bohannon explains the problem of the growing number of open access journals and there lack of effective peer review. Of 300 fake articles sent out to as many different online journals more than half were accepted without relevant criticism.
+The crisis of science's quality control system is affecting the use of science for policy. This is the thesis of a recent work by a group of STS scholars, who identify in 'evidence based (or informed) policy' a point of present tension.<ref name="FUTURES1">{{Cite journal|last1=Saltelli |first1=A. |last2=Funtowicz |first2=S. |year=2017 |title=What is science's crisis really about? |journal=Futures |volume=91 |pages=5–11 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010}}</ref><ref name="Benessia-al2016">{{Cite book|last1=Benessia |first1=A. |last2=Funtowicz |first2=S. |last3=Giampietro |first3=M. |last4=Guimarães Pereira |first4=A. |last5=Ravetz |first5=J. |last6=Saltelli |first6=A. |last7=Strand |first7=R. |last8=van der Sluijs |first8=J. |year=2016 |title=The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge |publisher=Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University|title-link=The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge }}</ref><ref name="Letter">{{cite magazine|first1=Andrea |last1=Saltelli|first2=Jerome R. |last2=Ravetz|first3=Silvio |last3=Funtowicz|lastauthoramp=y|url=https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg23030791-600-7-a-new-community-for-science/|title=A new community for science|magazine=New Scientist|issue=3079|p=52|date=25 June 2016}}</ref><ref name="FUTURES2" /> Economist Noah Smith suggests that a factor in the crisis has been the overvaluing of research in academia and undervaluing of teaching ability, especially in fields with few major recent discoveries.<ref name="Academic signaling and the post-truth world">{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Noah|title=Academic signaling and the post-truth world|url=http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/academic-signaling-and-post-truth-world.html|website=Noahpinion|publisher=Stony Brook University|accessdate=5 November 2017|date=2016-12-14}}</ref>In the journal ''Science'' article “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”<ref> [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full John Bohannon: Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?], Science  04 Oct 2013: Vol. 342, Issue 6154, pp. 60-65;  DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60</ref> author John Bohannon explains the problem of the growing number of open access journals and there lack of effective peer review. Of 300 fake articles filled with obvious mistakes and nonsense sent out to as many different online journals more than half were accepted without relevant criticism.
 === Publication bias ===
@@ Line 179: / Line 181: @@
 Marcus R. Munafò and George Davey Smith argue, in a piece published by ''[[Nature_(journal)|Nature]]'', that research should emphasize triangulation, not just replication. They claim that,
-{{quote|replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist [[Peter Lipton]] called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|title = Anticipating consequences of sharing raw data and code and of awarding badges for sharing|journal = Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|volume = 70|pages = 258–260|doi = 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.015|pmid = 26163123|first = John P. A.|last = Ioannidis|year = 2016}}</ref>}}
+{{quote|replication alone will get us only so far (and) might actually make matters worse&nbsp;... We believe that an essential protection against flawed ideas is triangulation. This is the strategic use of multiple approaches to address one question. Each approach has its own unrelated assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Results that agree across different methodologies are less likely to be [[Artifact (error)|artefacts]].&nbsp;... Maybe one reason replication has captured so much interest is the often-repeated idea that falsification is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. This idea was popularized by [[Karl Popper]]'s 1950s maxim that theories can never be proved, only [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. Yet an overemphasis on repeating experiments could provide an unfounded sense of certainty about findings that rely on a single approach.&nbsp;... philosophers of science have moved on since Popper. Better descriptions of how scientists actually work include what epistemologist [[Peter Lipton]] called in 1991 "inference to the best explanation".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Amrhein|first1=Valentin|last2=Korner-Nievergelt|first2=Fränzi|last3=Roth|first3=Tobias|title=The earth is flat (p > 0.05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research|journal=PeerJ|date=2017|volume=5|page=e3544|doi=10.7717/peerj.3544|pmid=28698825|pmc=5502092}}</ref>}}
 == References ==
@@ Line 190: / Line 192: @@
 *{{cite web |last1=Bastian |first1=Hilda |title=Reproducibility Crisis Timeline: Milestones in Tackling Research Reliability |url=https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/12/05/reproducibility-crisis-timeline-milestones-in-tackling-research-reliability/ |website=Absolutely Maybe |accessdate=5 June 2019 |date=5 December 2016}}
 *{{cite book |last1=Harris |first1=Richard |title=Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions |date=2017 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |isbn=9780465097906}}
 *[https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress Scientific Regress] – William A. Wilson in First Things, May 2016