A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades.

ABSTRACT: Conjecture about the weak replicability in social sciences has made scholars eager to quantify the scale and scope of replication failure for a discipline. Yet small-scale manual replication methods alone are ill-suited to deal with this big data problem. Here, we conduct a discipline-wide replication census in science. Our sample (N = 14,126 papers) covers nearly all papers published in the six top-tier Psychology journals over the past 20 y. Using a validated machine learning model that estimates a paper's likelihood of replication, we found evidence that both supports and refutes speculations drawn from a relatively small sample of manual replications. First, we find that a single overall replication rate of Psychology poorly captures the varying degree of replicability among sub

SUBMITTER: Youyou W 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9963456 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature