Replication of the natural selection of bad science
This study reports an independent replication of the findings presented by Smaldino and McElreath (Smaldino, McElreath 2016 R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (doi:10.1098/rsos.160384)). The replication was successful with one exception. We find that selection acting on scientist’s propensity for replicati...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Royal Society
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | Royal Society Open Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.221306 |
| Summary: | This study reports an independent replication of the findings presented by Smaldino and McElreath (Smaldino, McElreath 2016 R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (doi:10.1098/rsos.160384)). The replication was successful with one exception. We find that selection acting on scientist’s propensity for replication frequency caused a brief period of exuberant replication not observed in the original paper due to a coding error. This difference does not, however, change the authors’ original conclusions. We call for more replication studies for simulations as unique contributions to scientific quality assurance. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2054-5703 |