ArticlePeerJ2019
Rate and success of study replication in ecology and evolution.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- A large-scale in silico replication of ecological and evolutionary studies.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Predation affects the evolution of sex-specific longevity.Biology letters · 2024Article
- Article
- Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Landscape-scale mapping of soil fungal distribution: proposing a new NGS-based approach.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- An Invited Reply to: A Comment on: The exploitation of sexual signals by predators: a meta-analysis (2022) WhiteProceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Reproducibility in ecology and evolution: Minimum standards for data and code.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology.BMC biology · 2023Article
- Article
- A contrast of meta and metafor packages for meta-analyses in R.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- The role of replication studies in ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Article
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
The recent replication crisis has caused several scientific disciplines to self-reflect on the frequency with which they replicate previously published studies and to assess their success in such endeavours. The rate of replication, however, has yet to be assessed for ecology and evolution. Here, I survey the open-access ecology and evolution literature to determine how often ecologists and evolutionary biologists replicate, or at least claim to replicate, previously published studies. I found that approximately 0.023% of ecology and evolution studies are described by their authors as replications. Two of the 11 original-replication study pairs provided sufficient statistical detail for three effects so as to permit a formal analysis of replication success. Replicating authors correctly concluded that they replicated an original effect in two cases; in the third case, my analysis suggests that the finding by the replicating authors was consistent with the original finding, contrary the conclusion of "replication failure" by the authors.
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.