How often are replication attempts questioned?

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Przemysław G Hensel
{"title":"How often are replication attempts questioned?","authors":"Przemysław G Hensel","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2198126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fear of retaliation from the original authors and their allies has been proposed as one of the explanations for the paucity of replications. In the current paper the frequency of negative responses to replications in psychology, and the attention such responses attract, was measured in a series of three studies. Study 1 indicates that replications do not attract more negative mentions in literature than randomly selected non-replication papers unless they are independent and failed, in which case a small increase in negative mentions was noticed, although replications with open data were less likely to attract such mentions. Moreover, no difference in attracting comments on a post-publication peer-review site between replications and non-replication papers was found. Study 2 shows that independent failed and partially successful replications are more likely to attract stand-alone replies than non-replication papers, but the risk is still small and is reduced for replications with open data. Study 3 indicates that stand-alone replies to replications attract fewer citations and readers than the replications to which they respond. I conclude that scientists' unwillingness to criticize published research, cited as one of the reasons for the paucity of replications, also benefits replicators by largely shielding their research from questioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2198126","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fear of retaliation from the original authors and their allies has been proposed as one of the explanations for the paucity of replications. In the current paper the frequency of negative responses to replications in psychology, and the attention such responses attract, was measured in a series of three studies. Study 1 indicates that replications do not attract more negative mentions in literature than randomly selected non-replication papers unless they are independent and failed, in which case a small increase in negative mentions was noticed, although replications with open data were less likely to attract such mentions. Moreover, no difference in attracting comments on a post-publication peer-review site between replications and non-replication papers was found. Study 2 shows that independent failed and partially successful replications are more likely to attract stand-alone replies than non-replication papers, but the risk is still small and is reduced for replications with open data. Study 3 indicates that stand-alone replies to replications attract fewer citations and readers than the replications to which they respond. I conclude that scientists' unwillingness to criticize published research, cited as one of the reasons for the paucity of replications, also benefits replicators by largely shielding their research from questioning.

复制尝试多久会受到质疑?
有人提出,害怕原作者及其盟友的报复,是复制论文少见的原因之一。在本文中,我们通过三项系列研究,对心理学中复制论文的负面回应频率以及此类回应所吸引的关注度进行了测量。研究 1 表明,与随机选取的非复制论文相比,复制论文在文献中吸引的负面评论并不比非复制论文多,除非它们是独立的、失败的,在这种情况下,负面评论会略有增加,尽管公开数据的复制论文吸引负面评论的可能性较小。此外,在发表后的同行评审网站上,复制论文和非复制论文在吸引评论方面也没有发现差异。研究 2 表明,与非复制论文相比,独立的失败和部分成功的复制论文更有可能吸引独立的回复,但风险仍然很小,而且对于有开放数据的复制论文来说,风险更小。研究 3 表明,对复制论文的独立回复所吸引的引用次数和读者人数都少于其所回复的复制论文。我的结论是,科学家们不愿意批评已发表的研究成果,这被认为是复制论文较少的原因之一,但同时也有利于复制者,因为这在很大程度上使他们的研究免受质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信