Replication Crisis: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

== ~~Question~~ ==

== Severity of the replication crisis in psychology versus medicine ==

Is the replication crisis ~~worst~~ in psychology or medicine?

The large-scale replication project reported in ''Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science'' attempted to repeat 100 experimental and correlational studies from three high-impact psychology journals; only 36 % of the replications reached statistical significance in the same direction as the originals, and the replicated effect sizes were, on average, about half of those first reported [1].

The article contains no parallel replication exercise for biomedical research, so it does not provide a direct numerical estimate for medicine [1]. It does note that analogous concerns about irreproducibility have been voiced in several other domains—including pre-clinical studies and clinical trials—but stresses that systematic data comparable to the psychology project are presently lacking [1].

=== Public discourse ===

Because psychology has undergone the most comprehensive, discipline-wide replication audit to date, some commentators argue that the field appears “worse” simply because it has been scrutinised more thoroughly [1]. Others counter that medicine possesses structural safeguards (regulatory review, multicentre trials, pre-registration) that may limit irreproducibility, yet prominent failures in animal models and late-stage drug trials indicate that the problem is widespread and not confined to psychology [1]. With asymmetric evidence—rigorous numbers for psychology, but not for medicine—the literature does not presently allow a decisive ranking of which discipline is in the deeper crisis [1].

== Conclusion ==

Based on the quantitative data available, psychology shows a replication success rate of roughly one-third. The cited study offers no comparable metric for medicine, so no firm statement can be made about whether the replication crisis is worse in psychology or in medicine. Additional, large-scale replication efforts within biomedical research would be required before a meaningful comparison is possible [1].

— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.

== Sources ==

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26315443/

== Question ==

Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Question ==
+== Severity of the replication crisis in psychology versus medicine ==
-Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?
+The large-scale replication project reported in ''Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science'' attempted to repeat 100 experimental and correlational studies from three high-impact psychology journals; only 36 % of the replications reached statistical significance in the same direction as the originals, and the replicated effect sizes were, on average, about half of those first reported [1].
+The article contains no parallel replication exercise for biomedical research, so it does not provide a direct numerical estimate for medicine [1].  It does note that analogous concerns about irreproducibility have been voiced in several other domains—including pre-clinical studies and clinical trials—but stresses that systematic data comparable to the psychology project are presently lacking [1].
+=== Public discourse ===
+Because psychology has undergone the most comprehensive, discipline-wide replication audit to date, some commentators argue that the field appears “worse” simply because it has been scrutinised more thoroughly [1].  Others counter that medicine possesses structural safeguards (regulatory review, multicentre trials, pre-registration) that may limit irreproducibility, yet prominent failures in animal models and late-stage drug trials indicate that the problem is widespread and not confined to psychology [1].  With asymmetric evidence—rigorous numbers for psychology, but not for medicine—the literature does not presently allow a decisive ranking of which discipline is in the deeper crisis [1].
+== Conclusion ==
+Based on the quantitative data available, psychology shows a replication success rate of roughly one-third.  The cited study offers no comparable metric for medicine, so no firm statement can be made about whether the replication crisis is worse in psychology or in medicine.  Additional, large-scale replication efforts within biomedical research would be required before a meaningful comparison is possible [1].
+— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.
 == Sources ==
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26315443/
+== Question ==
+Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?