The poster might have confused social sciences with psychology?
>Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
>Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[76] A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results.[77] But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.[78]
25% of experiments replicating in-house is crazy low, but explainable due to very different incentives (the researchers need to get the paper out; the Bayer scientists need to have a functioning product)
Didn't realize there was so much variation from field to field. Even inside 'social sciences'.
I'd like to see this across all, including STEM.
Note: I'm using 'social science' colloquially. On HN, seems like Psychology is a 'social science'. Anything dealing with people is deemed a 'social science'. Even though that isn't technically correct, they are separate fields. There is a 'Social Science' field and a 'Psychology' field.
Why cite something if any source will be rejected.
Where are we when no studies are trusted, and no review body of any study is trusted.
Don't think it is just social science. That is hubris, in our post truth world.
""A study published in 2018 in Nature Human Behaviour replicated 21 social and behavioral science papers from Nature and Science, finding that only about 62% could successfully reproduce original results."
Roger A (27 August 2018). "The Science Behind Social Science Gets Shaken Up—Again". Wired. Retrieved 2018-08-28.
Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Ho TH, Huber J, Johannesson M, et al. (September 2018). "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in
Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015". Nature Human Behaviour. 2 (9): 637–644. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z. PMID 31346273. S2CID 52098703.
"For instance, a major reproducibility project that sought to replicate 193 experiments from 53 high-profile cancer biology research papers ran into multiple barriers."
a_bonobo|2 years ago
>Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Definitely better than medicine!
>Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[76] A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results.[77] But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.[78]
25% of experiments replicating in-house is crazy low, but explainable due to very different incentives (the researchers need to get the paper out; the Bayer scientists need to have a functioning product)
FrustratedMonky|2 years ago
I'd like to see this across all, including STEM.
Note: I'm using 'social science' colloquially. On HN, seems like Psychology is a 'social science'. Anything dealing with people is deemed a 'social science'. Even though that isn't technically correct, they are separate fields. There is a 'Social Science' field and a 'Psychology' field.
thimp|2 years ago
[deleted]
FrustratedMonky|2 years ago
Where are we when no studies are trusted, and no review body of any study is trusted.
Don't think it is just social science. That is hubris, in our post truth world.
""A study published in 2018 in Nature Human Behaviour replicated 21 social and behavioral science papers from Nature and Science, finding that only about 62% could successfully reproduce original results."
Roger A (27 August 2018). "The Science Behind Social Science Gets Shaken Up—Again". Wired. Retrieved 2018-08-28. Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Ho TH, Huber J, Johannesson M, et al. (September 2018). "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in
Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015". Nature Human Behaviour. 2 (9): 637–644. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z. PMID 31346273. S2CID 52098703.
https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/amid-a-replicati...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200566
EDIT
"For instance, a major reproducibility project that sought to replicate 193 experiments from 53 high-profile cancer biology research papers ran into multiple barriers."
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/the-replication-crisis-is-...
EDIT 2:
Physics Discussion https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/72/12/8/811763/The...