ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
105 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods for Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB): A Systematic Review and Guidelines.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2023Pooled it
- Where is the "where" in the brain? A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on spatial cognition.Human brain mapping · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Why researchers cut corners: motivations, pressures, and personality in questionable research practices.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Science Is About Thinking: How Can We Protect Thinking Time in a Distracted Digital World?Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- What is critical metascience and why is it important?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Verification and reproducible curation of the BioModels repository.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- fNIRS reproducibility varies with data quality, analysis pipelines, and researcher experience.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Housing and husbandry factors affecting zebrafish novel tank test responses: a global multi-laboratory study.Lab animal · 2025Article
- Fostering trustworthy information: countering disinformation when there are no bare facts.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- The file drawer problem in social science survey experiments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The reliability of replications: a study in computational reproductions.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- How can we make sound replication decisions?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Guidance framework to apply best practices in ecological data analysis: lessons learned from building Galaxy-Ecology.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Public engagement with research reproducibility.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Spider's Silk as a Potential Source of Antibiotics: An Integrative Review.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2024Review
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Reproducibility of arterial spin labeling cerebral blood flow image processing: A report of the ISMRM open science initiative for perfusion imaging (OSIPI) and the ASL MRI challenge.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.
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.