Aug 28, 2015 07:11 PM
A team of several hundred international researchers tried to replicate 100 psychological experiments reported in top psychological journals. They were only able to replicate 36% of them. Even when results were successfully replicated, effects tended to be smaller and less dramatic than were originally reported.
Results varied by psychological specialty. Social psychology papers were only replicated 25% of the time. Cognitive psychology did a little better, with replication in about half the cases.
Observers are blaming these appalling results on the academic subculture, where an academic's reputation depends on what he or she publishes. So there is a lot of pressure to publish dramatic results that generate talk and rise to the top of the citation rankings. As one of the authors of this replication study writes, "What it takes to be a successful academic is not necessarily that well alligned with what it takes to be a good scientist".
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/...nt-results
Results varied by psychological specialty. Social psychology papers were only replicated 25% of the time. Cognitive psychology did a little better, with replication in about half the cases.
Observers are blaming these appalling results on the academic subculture, where an academic's reputation depends on what he or she publishes. So there is a lot of pressure to publish dramatic results that generate talk and rise to the top of the citation rankings. As one of the authors of this replication study writes, "What it takes to be a successful academic is not necessarily that well alligned with what it takes to be a good scientist".
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/...nt-results