Abstract
Reproducibility is an essential feature of all scientific outcomes. Scientific evidence can only reach its true status as reliable if replicated, but the results of well-conducted replication studies face an uphill battle to be performed, and little attention and dedication have been put into publishing the results of replication attempts. Therefore, we asked a small cohort of researchers about their attempts to replicate results from other groups, as well as from their own laboratories, and their general perception of the issues concerning reproducibility in their field. We also asked how they perceive the venues, i.e. journals, to communicate and discuss the results of these attempts. To this aim we pre-registered and shared a questionnaire among scientists at diverse levels. The results indicate that, in general, replication attempts of their own protocols are quite successful (with over 80% reporting not or rarely having problems with their own protocols). Although the majority of respondents tried to replicate a study or experiment from other labs (75.4%), the median successful rate was scored at 3 (in a 1-5 scale), while the median for the general estimation of replication success in their field was found to be 5 (in a 1-10 scale). The majority of respondents (70.2%) also perceive journals as unwelcoming of replication studies.
Highlights
Reproducibility, as a general concept of agreement among experimental outcomes, is a core component of science
What is your perception about journals’ policy for results of replication attempts? The results indicate that respondents do not see journals as welcoming venues to publish the results of replication attempts, with 70.2% answering that journals are not friendly to publish such results
The respondents were asked to estimate the success of replication attempts in their field from 1 to 10, and the results indicated a median of 5 (Q1= 3.5; Q3= 6; Mean/SD= 5.00/1.75, n=57), Figure 1D, with none of the answers scoring 9 or 10
Summary
Reproducibility, as a general concept of agreement among experimental outcomes, is a core component of science. As argued by Nosek and Errington, the purpose of replication is to advance a theory by confronting existing understanding with new evidence [3]. In this sense, communicating the outcomes of replication attempts is essential to allow comparisons and discussions about the generalizability of a theory, hypothesis or model. The same system of incentives promotes a restless seek for novelty, where scientists are pushed to pursue and publish new and impactful results This scenario creates an unfriendly environment for attempts to replicate previous results, since scientists, institutions and journals depend on and feed the current system. The results are observed in reproducibility issues in several fields, such as psychology [4], cancer biology [5,6], functional magnetic resonance imaging [7] and biomarkers in psychiatry [8] to cite some of the most evident
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
