News & Views | Published:


The reproducibility opportunity

Nature Human Behaviourvolume 2pages616617 (2018) | Download Citation


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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Camerer, C. F. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. (2018).

  2. 2.

    Open Science Collaboration. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Camerer, C. F. et al. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).

  4. 4.

    Davis, R, et al. Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology. eLIFE (2014).

  5. 5.

    Macleod, M. R. et al. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002273 (2015).

  6. 6.

    Lithgow, G. J., Driscoll, M. & Phillips, P. Nature 548, 387–388 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Lucanic, M. et al. Nat. Commun. 8, 14256 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Isager, P. M. What to replicate? Justifications of study choice from 85 replication studies. Zenodo (2018).

  9. 9.

    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 (2018).

Download references

Author information


  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    • Malcolm R. Macleod


  1. Search for Malcolm R. Macleod in:

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm R. Macleod.

About this article

Publication history



Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing