Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

METASCIENCE

The reproducibility opportunity

Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 616–617 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

A cardinal feature of scientific endeavour is held to be self-correction, so why the need for formal replications? If science were operating as intended, should this not happen automatically? It is important that all scientific results be sound, because the findings from one study are often used as the starting point for future work. Therefore, if these initial results are faulty or only work in specific situations, then future work is compromised.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Camerer, C. F. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis, R, et al. Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology. eLIFE https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology (2014).

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Isager, P. M. What to replicate? Justifications of study choice from 85 replication studies. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1286715 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 https://retractionwatch.com/category/nieuwland-nature-neuroscience/ (2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Malcolm R. Macleod

Authors
  1. Malcolm R. Macleod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm R. Macleod.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0398-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

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