@MasatsuguSakata: I have heard this many times, but seeing the summary I’ve heard this many times, but I’m surprised to see the summary again. I wonder if the teachers in charge of liberal arts courses such as Introduction to Psychology or Social Psychology have anything to say now that this has happened. A series of well-known research papers in psychology, behavioral economics, and other fields have failed to follow up Psychology | Memoirs of a Thousand Issues note https://t.co/PQR0frJlCp
@MasatsuguSakata: By the way, it is not true that only psychology has low reproducibility. I’m not sure if psychology is the only field with low reproducibility. More than 70% of medical biology papers cannot be reproduced! | Nature Digest | Nature Portfolio https://t.co/cLUFQsnAFI
Considering the overall optimization of humanity, it should be counted as a “contribution to humanity” only when the fact that “I was able to reproduce it by reading only what was described in the paper” occurs.
- In reality, however, volunteer peer reviewers have neither the time nor the incentive to do additional testing, so they just look at the text and accept it on the basis of “it doesn’t look bad.
- I think it’s Incorrect KPI setting because even after it’s accepted, it’s evaluated on a scale like “citation index” that goes up if it’s a catchy story.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/再現性 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.