<< Papers in leading psychology, economic and science journals that fail to replicate and therefore are less likely to be true are often the most cited papers in academic research, >>
The study << explores the ongoing "replication crisis" in which researchers have discovered that many findings in the fields of social sciences and medicine don't hold up when other researchers try to repeat the experiments. The paper reveals that findings from studies that cannot be verified when the experiments are repeated have a bigger influence over time. The unreliable research tends to be cited as if the results were true long after the publication failed to replicate. >>
<< We also know that experts can predict well which papers will be replicated, (..) Given this prediction, we ask 'why are non-replicable papers accepted for publication in the first place?' >> Marta Serra-Garcia.
<< Their possible answer is that review teams of academic journals face a trade-off. When the results are more "interesting," they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility. >>
<< Interesting or appealing findings are also covered more by media or shared on platforms like Twitter, generating a lot of attention, but that does not make them true, >> Uri Gneezy.️
A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more.
University of California - San Diego. May 21, 2021.
<< Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. >>
️
Marta Serra-Garcia, Uri Gneezy. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Science Advances. Vol. 7, no. 21, eabd1705
doi: 10.1126/ sciadv.abd1705. May 21, 2021.
Also
keyword 'oops' in FonT
