Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones
Published papers that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate, even after the failure is published. We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replic...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Science advances Vol. 7; no. 21 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Association for the Advancement of Science
21-05-2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Published papers that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate, even after the failure is published.
We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 These authors contributed equally to this work. |
| ISSN: | 2375-2548 2375-2548 |
| DOI: | 10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 |