Is there a reproducibility crisis? A Nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the 'crisis rocking science and what they think will help

Citation metadata

Author: Monya Baker
Date: May 26, 2016
From: Nature(Vol. 533, Issue 7604.)
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,643 words
Article Preview :

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology (1) and cancer biology (2), found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be." But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus."

Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a longstanding interest in scientific reproducibility. When he was a student, he says, "I tried to replicate what looked simple from the literature, and wasn't able to. Then I had a crisis of confidence, and then I learned that my experience wasn't uncommon."

The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. "We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads."

THE SCALE OF REPRODUCIBILITY

But sorting discoveries from false leads can be discomfiting. Although the vast majority of researchers in our survey had failed to reproduce an experiment, less than 20% of respondents said that they had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work (see A 'crisis' in numbers'). Our results are strikingly similar to another online survey of nearly 900 members of the American...

Main content

Source Citation

Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Baker, Monya. "Is there a reproducibility crisis? A Nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the 'crisis rocking science and what they think will help." Nature, vol. 533, no. 7604, 2016, p. 452+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, Accessed 21 Sept. 2019.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A454730385