In psychology Despite issues with replicability being pervasive across scientific fields, several factors have combined to put psychology at the center of the conversation. Some areas of psychology once considered solid, such as social priming, have come under increased scrutiny due to failed<unk> s. Much of the focus has been on the area of social psychology, although other areas of psychology such as clinical psychology, developmental psychology, and educational research have also been implicated. In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called The Reproducibility Project. Coordinated by psychologist Brian Nosek, researchers redid 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science). 97 of the original studies had significant effects, but out those 97, only 36% of the<unk> s yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05). The mean effect size in the<unk> s was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies. The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study<unk>  rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher<unk>  rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%). A study published in 2018 in Nature Human Behaviour replicated 21 social and behavioral science papers from Nature and Science, finding that only about 62% could successfully reproduce original results. Similarly, in a study conducted under the auspices of the Center for Open Science, a team of 186 researchers from 60 different laboratories (representing 36 different nationalities from 6 different continents) conducted<unk> s of 28 classic and contemporary findings in psychology. The focus of the study was not only on whether or not the findings from the original papers replicated but also on the extent to which findings varied as a function of variations in samples and contexts. Overall, 50% of the 28 findings failed to replicate despite massive sample sizes. However, if a finding replicated, then it replicated in most samples. If a finding was not replicated, then it failed to replicate with little variation across samples and contexts. This evidence is inconsistent with a proposed explanation that failures to replicate in psychology are likely due to changes in the sample between the original and<unk>  study. Early analysis of result-blind peer review, which is less affected by publication bias, has estimated that 61 percent of result-blind studies have led to null results, in contrast to an estimated 5 to 20 percent in earlier research.Results from The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology suggest most studies of the cancer research sector may not be replicable In medicine Out of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged. A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results. However, the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results which did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications. In a paper published in 2012, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had<unk> s that could confirm conclusions from the original studies. In late 2021, The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology examined 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012 and showed that among studies that provided sufficient information to be redone, the effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings. A survey on cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result. In economics Economics has lagged behind other social sciences and psychology in its attempts to assess<unk>  rates and increase the number of studies which attempt<unk> . A 2016 study in the journal Science replicated 18 experimental studies published in two top-tier economics journals (The American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics) between 2011 and 2014. It found that about 39% failed to reproduce the original results. About 20% of studies published in The American Economic Review are contradicted by other studies despite relying on the same or similar datasets. A study of empirical findings in the Strategic Management Journal found that about 30% of 27 retested articles showed statistically insignificant results for previously significant findings, whereas about 4 percent showed statistically significant results for previously insignificant findings. In water resource management A 2019 study in Scientific Data estimated with 95% confidence that out of 1,989 articles on water resources and management published in 2017, study results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all articles, even if each of these articles were to provide sufficient information that allowed for<unk> . Across fields A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% do agree that a significant<unk>  exists. Most researchers said that they still trust the published literature.
Replication crisis
Breakthrough infection
Pandemic fatigue
Exacerbation
Second-impact syndrome
Ischemic cascade
Distributive shock
Cryptic shock