ArticlePloS one2021
Predicting replicability-Analysis of survey and prediction market data from large-scale forecasting projects.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- There is no clear target for replication rates.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- A metric of knowledge as information compression reflects reproducibility predictions for biomedical experiments.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Can large language models help predict results from a complex behavioural science study?Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Forecasting migration movements using prediction markets.Comparative migration studies · 2024Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Impression management attenuates the effect of ability on trust in economic exchange.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Using prediction markets to predict the outcomes in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's next-generation social science programme.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reproducibility of published research has become an important topic in science policy. A number of large-scale replication projects have been conducted to gauge the overall reproducibility in specific academic fields. Here, we present an analysis of data from four studies which sought to forecast the outcomes of replication projects in the social and behavioural sciences, using human experts who participated in prediction markets and answered surveys. Because the number of findings replicated and predicted in each individual study was small, pooling the data offers an opportunity to evaluate hypotheses regarding the performance of prediction markets and surveys at a higher power. In total, peer beliefs were elicited for the replication outcomes of 103 published findings. We find there is information within the scientific community about the replicability of scientific findings, and that both surveys and prediction markets can be used to elicit and aggregate this information. Our results show prediction markets can determine the outcomes of direct replications with 73% accuracy (n = 103). Both the prediction market prices, and the average survey responses are correlated with outcomes (0.581 and 0.564 respectively, both p < .001). We also found a significant relationship between p-values of the original findings and replication outcomes. The dataset is made available through the R package "pooledmaRket" and can be used to further study community beliefs towards replications outcomes as elicited in the surveys and prediction markets.
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.