ArticlePloS one2015
The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Shedding light on public perceptions of scientists who engage in wrongness admission amidst a failed replication.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Transparent reporting in forensic Science: Exploring its meaning and challenges.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Review
- Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes.Psychological methods · 2025Article
- The Reproducibility Movement in Psychology: Does Researcher Gender Affect How People Perceive Scientists With a Failed Replication?Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2021Article
- Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- The Role of Intrasexual Competition and the Big 5 in the Perpetration of Digital Dating Abuse.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientists are dedicating more attention to replication efforts. While the scientific utility of replications is unquestionable, the impact of failed replication efforts and the discussions surrounding them deserve more attention. Specifically, the debates about failed replications on social media have led to worry, in some scientists, regarding reputation. In order to gain data-informed insights into these issues, we collected data from 281 published scientists. We assessed whether scientists overestimate the negative reputational effects of a failed replication in a scenario-based study. Second, we assessed the reputational consequences of admitting wrongness (versus not) as an original scientist of an effect that has failed to replicate. Our data suggests that scientists overestimate the negative reputational impact of a hypothetical failed replication effort. We also show that admitting wrongness about a non-replicated finding is less harmful to one's reputation than not admitting. Finally, we discovered a hint of evidence that feelings about the replication movement can be affected by whether replication efforts are aimed one's own work versus the work of another. Given these findings, we then present potential ways forward in these discussions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.