RT @laurencetratt: What happens when you replicate 100 psychology studies, 97% of which claimed significant effects? Only 36% seem to have…
What happens when you replicate 100 psychology studies, 97% of which claimed significant effects? Only 36% seem to have significant effects (which, to say the least is... bad). https://t.co/Yk74quh2fM (via @lemire)
Bestimmt habt ihr auch schon von der Replikationskrise gehört, die aktuell ein großes Problem in der Wissenschaft (nicht nur in der Psychologie!) ist. Siehe die Open Science Collaboration, 2015: https://t.co/rMjwmDIMIp
RT @jayvanbavel: 1)This is almost identical to the findings from the Open Science Collaboration paper in @sciencemagazine (cited over 1800…
RT @jayvanbavel: 1)This is almost identical to the findings from the Open Science Collaboration paper in @sciencemagazine (cited over 1800…
RT @jayvanbavel: 1)This is almost identical to the findings from the Open Science Collaboration paper in @sciencemagazine (cited over 1800…
RT @jayvanbavel: 1)This is almost identical to the findings from the Open Science Collaboration paper in @sciencemagazine (cited over 1800…
1)This is almost identical to the findings from the Open Science Collaboration paper in @sciencemagazine (cited over 1800 times): Smaller effects in original studies, but a strong correlation between original & replication effects (Pearson r = .60) h
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological #science. TLDR: Publish or perish: unfortunately unreproducible. https://t.co/kVCZMMoNoR
RT @stephenjbright: Could #psychedelics be immune from the #replicationcrisis in #psychology? The results of 67% of 100 studies from 3 top…
RT @stephenjbright: Could #psychedelics be immune from the #replicationcrisis in #psychology? The results of 67% of 100 studies from 3 top…
Could #psychedelics be immune from the #replicationcrisis in #psychology? The results of 67% of 100 studies from 3 top journals were not replicated. Perhaps the novelty of #psychedelics will make replication more palatable for journals - for now at least h
I learned to code so my scientific research could be reproducible: https://t.co/XhlmziVJgR https://t.co/Know1006Bg And now it helps me at @oregoniandata! Thank goodness for these endeavors in every domain: @OSFramework, @rhizome, @internetarchive, @library
Más aún: muchos de los resultados publicados, que tomamos por ciertos... luego son irreplicables. Se repite el estudio, y no se obtiene el mismo resultado. https://t.co/wL0eRs28vM
@beercatphd @aidangcw For the OSC paper (https://t.co/pkClBTt6xs), I performed the analysis audit and lead a team of students who reproduce every analysis in R. All data was available and many original analysis files too (e.g., SPSS files). It *still* was
@mythousandfaces @Marakkel @MontanaKlingsp1 @business @BV Lol, have a look at this: https://t.co/s0AEyMpQ4X
@Chris_Stevens1 @victoriauninews @WillTheKiwi @FabioSerpiello To counter, study reproducibility of psychological studies: https://t.co/ReYnr7QwW6. Of 100 studies replicated, findings reproduced in only 39. Strongest predictor of reproducibility? p value. L
@CepoDario @pavelgregoric Nista, bas nista. https://t.co/3omh1ULY4O
@sTeamTraen there are several. here is one https://t.co/sFxqTeixga
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
RT @GabeLenz: @polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.…
@polanalysis In the large replication study in Science, low p-value was one of the best predictors of replication. https://t.co/NAKl59zYEK https://t.co/tHOOVpc0bh
@david_colquhoun @HarryDCrane @JnfrLTackett See https://t.co/y6KzQATJ0K replication was about 25% for two social and two 50% for cognitive journals (though I think these could over or under represent the rates - they aren't random samples)
@JoonaSaulamaa Psykologiassa <50% tutkimuksista on toistettavissa https://t.co/mLeg8uSphb .Ravitsemustieteeseessä koeasetelmat ovat psykologiaa epäluotettavampia ja valintaharhan riski isompi. Molemmissa on kannustimet tehdä huonoa tiedettä https://t.co
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
https://t.co/GHzuTSpY0R حاليا هناك حراك في الوسط الأكاديمي من شأنه حث جميع الباحثين على تبني مبدأ الشفافيه فيما يتعلق بتوفير بيانات الأبحاث المنشوره، بحيث لا يقتصر على توضيح المعلومات في الورقه العلميه فقط - وانما ايضا العمل على إتاحة البيانات الأساسية...ل
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
RT @ScientificSaudi: إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.…
إن علم النفس مهمٌ جداً لفهم أنفسنا، ولكنه بحاجةٍ للكثيرمن المراجعة والصقل. المصدر: https://t.co/idZxM2vcCT https://t.co/0Wo2BlThOL
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/819pEUboEM
@LRoorda @hendrikelema @HuubBellemakers @sndrspk @manjureijmer https://t.co/KJPfUMQ1jg daar doel ik op met herhaling/reproducibility. Ik bedoel niet double blind bij de review, maar bij experimentele opzet, zodat bias van researcher geen invloed kan hebben
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
RT @yutakashino: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白…
Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science https://t.co/SNcqnCnStY 心理学関係の研究の再現性が高くないというメタ研究.心理学の根本を揺さぶる内容で,面白い!こちらにこのメタ研究で用いた検証用Rのコードがありますね:https://t.co/B6vjdNkBqO
@JohannaXmr @robustgar @EJWagenmakers I'm sure there's examples in the raw data here (depending on your priors obv) https://t.co/YaGp5uZyF2 and the bayesian follow up https://t.co/Lzw6PxzO0H
@kylemacd https://t.co/PW1y7ol4mv 100 high-powered studies replicated from top psychology journals. 97% percent of original studies had statistically significant results. 36% percent of replications had statistically significant results.
It's been over two years since this major study on reliability of psychological studies was done. Hope the situation has improved: https://t.co/cTW5oBPYcM
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/VsDwz0OCE9
"Innovation points out paths that r possible; replication points out paths that r likely; progress relies on both." https://t.co/Kn3iRnfNKk
@samuelmehr @alex_peys Hm well ~40% of econ studies don't replicate, but ~50-70% of psych studies don't replicate https://t.co/VLUEvD64ax https://t.co/4xyQYSEDSW
Psychology: "about 1/3 to 1/2 of the original findings were also observed in the replication study" https://t.co/jJ1gcZF0XS
@BurnedIceGames flauw excuus, als je Google'd vind je het meteen https://t.co/3hmbSNkWpx @mboudry
とりあえずメモ/Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/OMGuCtkilr
RT @coding2share: The #reproducibility in psychological science studies. #OpenScience https://t.co/GU7gqhbM6h
The #reproducibility in psychological science studies. #OpenScience https://t.co/GU7gqhbM6h
2015 > Comment estimer la reproductibilité en psychologie ? https://t.co/rpTKB9oMGB Article original via @sciencemagazine #LaMethSci https://t.co/iXnopd9JHG
@Kid_inthe_Crowd Out of a 100 psychological studies replicated, 1/3 to 1/2 had the same results, so were "repeated". https://t.co/sdnOJ2emfA
RT @coding2share: Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely. #OpenScience https://t.co/GU…
RT @coding2share: Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely. #OpenScience https://t.co/GU…
Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely. #OpenScience https://t.co/GU7gqhbM6h
97% of original studies vs. 36% of replications found a significant effect in the same direction. #Reproducibility https://t.co/GU7gqhbM6h
2.97% of the original studies vs. 36% of replications found a significant effect in the same direction. #OpenScience https://t.co/7EeXUWEiLt
@Jonatthespec @cbcgopublic https://t.co/jGJ4GGjJMN 60% lacking in VALIDITY (DSM) stuff https://t.co/ckYRyv5oL4 https://t.co/Okm9VDJpyi
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/bHi8DkC7Pp
@TheSimonEvans @danengber and my one links to the Nosek study which tried to replicate 100 psych findings and only managed to replicate 39 https://t.co/PvFmKelbtE
RT @_samchalmers: Leading @ThermalErgLab journal club talk today: Do we have a 'replication crisis' in science? https://t.co/xJREnAGh53 htt…
RT @_samchalmers: Leading @ThermalErgLab journal club talk today: Do we have a 'replication crisis' in science? https://t.co/xJREnAGh53 htt…
RT @_samchalmers: Leading @ThermalErgLab journal club talk today: Do we have a 'replication crisis' in science? https://t.co/xJREnAGh53 htt…
RT @_samchalmers: Leading @ThermalErgLab journal club talk today: Do we have a 'replication crisis' in science? https://t.co/xJREnAGh53 htt…
Leading @ThermalErgLab journal club talk today: Do we have a 'replication crisis' in science? https://t.co/xJREnAGh53 https://t.co/XIk9RDQ7yI
@BrianNosek I'm writing about exploratory visualisation of data.Could I use chart from Your publication in Science https://t.co/8OB5WcsCC7
@KarlaHolmboe Many exist but this is the most famous https://t.co/YaGp5uZyF2
@thlbr @h_vartiainen @MikaelThesleff @markkuilmari @molkko @Mau_And ajatuksesta, että painottaisi enemmän empiiristä lähestymistapaa tieteen tutkimisessa, esim tämän tyylistä: https://t.co/gpEAfKkdk7
@FBpsy @Naukas_com @msebastian_psi @unnombrealazar @elprofedefisica Creo que es más fácil indignarse por una frase que hacer autocrítica por las 1500 palabras anteriores. https://t.co/AudG6k7z91
@schneiderleonid @aidanhorner @asehelene @antoniahamilton @Neuro_Skeptic @BrianNosek E.g. this very prominent paper: https://t.co/saQoujrUJq
RT @bberberov: "Reproducibility is not well understood … incentives … prioritize novelty over replication" https://t.co/uswcx6W5oZ by @OSFr…
RT @bberberov: "Reproducibility is not well understood … incentives … prioritize novelty over replication" https://t.co/uswcx6W5oZ by @OSFr…
RT @bberberov: "Reproducibility is not well understood … incentives … prioritize novelty over replication" https://t.co/uswcx6W5oZ by @OSFr…
"Reproducibility is not well understood … incentives … prioritize novelty over replication" https://t.co/uswcx6W5oZ by @OSFramework #Science https://t.co/kD32No352F
'Kenreisman/machine-learning' Top: Estimating the reproducibility of psychologi… https://t.co/P0dU0QrF5e, see more https://t.co/VAU8peuLvN
@seanjtaylor @alex_peys guessing you've checked the obvious place, @BrianNosek's paper? https://t.co/JJ8LOZUiAd
Les sciences sociales semblent bien avares à nous fournir des preuves de leur efficacité. #résultatsanecdotiques? https://t.co/P8dLzNM6cy
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/cHKzEStt2U (is it reproduced if results just not as strong?) #ebug2017
@angecramer The @OSFramework collaboration 2015 paper in @sciencemagazine and the discussions that ensued thereafter. https://t.co/JMNSxP3g72
@laloeffelstiel @ThiloAdamitz Siehe dazu: https://t.co/SC0TO2i0RM Man ist also immer gut beraten, diese 'Erkenntnisse' mit Vorsicht zu genießen, solange sie nicht über
"They find that about one-third to one-half of the original findings were also observed in the replication study." https://t.co/NLFnWyApea
@abbeykadabra @danarel Your consensus is wrong b/c it's based on studies which aren't replicable, so they are not science/medical fact. https://t.co/ETbI8HjuKk
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science https://t.co/HJZ59BWg67
بندگان خدا، 50 تا 70 درصد مقالات سایکولوژی خدا قابل بازپروری نیست، سوسیولوژی که یعنی هیچی :)) https://t.co/8A22BrjsV7