It is important for research users to know how likely it is that reported research findings are true. The Social Science Replication Project finds that, in highly powered experiments, only 13 of 21 high-profile reports could be replicated. Investigating the factors that contribute to reliable results offers new opportunities for the social sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Camerer, C. F. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z (2018).
Open Science Collaboration. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).
Camerer, C. F. et al. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).
Davis, R, et al. Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology. eLIFE https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology (2014).
Macleod, M. R. et al. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002273 (2015).
Lithgow, G. J., Driscoll, M. & Phillips, P. Nature 548, 387–388 (2017).
Lucanic, M. et al. Nat. Commun. 8, 14256 (2017).
Isager, P. M. What to replicate? Justifications of study choice from 85 replication studies. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1286715 (2018).
Nieuwlan, M. Nature says it wants to publish replication attempts. So what happened when a group of authors submitted one to Nature Neuroscience? Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/category/nieuwland-nature-neuroscience/ (2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macleod, M.R. The reproducibility opportunity. Nat Hum Behav 2, 616–617 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0398-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0398-0