The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research

@article{Mede2020TheC,
  title={The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research},
  author={Niels G{\"o}ran Mede and Mike S. Sch{\"a}fer and Ricarda Ziegler and Markus Wei{\ss}kopf},
  journal={Public Understanding of Science},
  year={2020},
  volume={30},
  pages={91 - 102}
}
Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

The Science of Open (Communication) Science: Toward an Evidence-Driven Understanding of Quality Criteria in Communication Research
TLDR
It is argued that communication as a field proceed empirically as it applies open science practices to different subfields in communication and end the essay with pathways forward for a science of open (communication) science.
Science Communication in the Context of Reproducibility and Replicability: How Nonscientists Navigate Scientific Uncertainty
Scientists stand to gain in obvious ways from recent efforts to develop robust standards for and mechanisms of reproducibility and replicability. Demonstrations of reproducibility and replicability

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 78 REFERENCES
The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research
Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about
Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople’s trust in researchers and research
TLDR
Results showed that ratings of study credibility and researcher trustworthiness were rated higher upon learning of replication success, and lower in case of replication failure, while the replication's author did not make a meaningful difference.
An Agenda for Open Science in Communication
In the last 10 years, many canonical findings in the social sciences appear unreliable. This so-called “replication crisis” has spurred calls for open science practices, which aim to increase the
Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean?
TLDR
This article suggests that so-called failures to replicate may not be failures at all, but rather are the result of low statistical power in single replication studies, and of failure to appreciate the need for multiple replications in order to have enough power to identify true effects.
Why People “Don’t Trust the Evidence”
In this commentary, we embed the volume’s contributions on public beliefs about science in a broader theoretical discussion of motivated political reasoning. The studies presented in the preceding
Changing times for science and the public
TLDR
The time is ripe to reexamine the ways and means by which science is communicated to the public, owing to growing public interest in the scientific enterprise and demands for accountability.
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
TLDR
A large-scale assessment suggests that experimental reproducibility in psychology leaves a lot to be desired, and correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists
TLDR
It is suggested that scientists overestimate the negative reputational impact of a hypothetical failed replication effort, and it is shown that admitting wrongness about a non-replicated finding is less harmful to one’s reputation than not admitting.
A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings
TLDR
This work outlines a unified framework for estimating the credibility of published research by examining four fundamental falsifiability-related dimensions, and includes a standardized workflow in which the degree to which a finding has survived scrutiny is quantified along these four facets of credibility.
Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress
  • S. Vazire
  • Medicine, Psychology
    Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2018
TLDR
The rate of scientific progress is likely to increase as a result of changes in the standards by which psychological science is evaluated, although one’s subjective experience of making progress will likely become rarer.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...