Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones, 2021, Serra-Garcia & Gneezy

[Ravn]

"Abstract
We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility."

Open access, Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705

Science Alert article on the above paper:

The 'Replication Crisis' Could Be Worse Than We Thought, New Analysis Reveals

https://www.sciencealert.com/non-replicable-studies-make-the-most-impact-scientists-find

 

[rvallee]

That's nothing compared to the other crisis where invalid research is constantly "replicated", flaws and all. This is the tip of the iceberg, there are foundational concepts in medical research that are entirely built on invalid interpretation and only exist because of a flow of low-quality junk research that gets replicated en masse, all quantity with zero quality.

I mean just for the CBT for ME, NICE found, what, 150+ studies? Of the exact same thing, all low quality, and even that was a generous interpretation for what is made up of the discarded juice leaking out of garbage. That's the real crisis and it's far bigger than people are willing to accept.

Real knowledge doesn't need repetition and constant praise. This is the red flag that says this is not knowledge, it's busywork.