Psychology may have just regained some of its lost credibility. In a new study in the journal Science, researchers evaluate the 2015 claim that half of all psychology studies are so flawed they cannot be replicated – and beg to differ, writes Joshua A Krisch for Vocativ.
“They never had any chance of estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” said Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard University and co-author on the new study that thrashes the 2015 paper’s methodology, in a press statement. “If they had used these same methods to sample people instead of studies, no reputable scientific journal would have published their findings.”
The disappointing story of the replication study that couldn’t be replicated begins in the summer of 2015, when psychologist Brian Nosek and his team at the Open Science Collaboration published a controversial paper, claiming that they had surveyed 100 prominent psychology papers and found they could replicate the findings of a mere 39%. The results rocked the research world.
Full report on the Vocativ site
Receive UWN's free weekly e-newsletters