ArticleScience advances2021
Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones.
Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?European radiology · 2026Review
- Work-to-rest ratios in repeated sprint assessments: A replication study.Sports medicine international open · 2026Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Article
- Reproducibility and interpretability in radiomics: a critical assessmentDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Unraveling overoptimism and publication bias in ML-driven science.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- The inaccurate citation of the "Universal Declaration of Animal Rights" (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- A novel framework for increasing research transparency: Exploring the connection between diversity and innovation.PloS one · 2025Article
- The Erosion of Healthcare and Scientific Integrity: A Growing Concern.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2025Review
- REFORMS: Consensus-based Recommendations for Machine-learning-based Science.Science advances · 2024Review
- Article
- Elements of successful NIH grant applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The quantitative paradigm and the nature of the human mind. The replication crisis as an epistemological crisis of quantitative psychology in view of the ontic nature of the psyche.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Article
- Expecting the Unexpected: Entropy and Multifractal Systems in Finance.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and genotoxicity of electronic cigarettes emission aerosols compared to cigarette smoke: the REPLICA project.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Extraordinary Claims in the Literature on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): I. Bonafide Scientific Revolution or a Looming Crisis of Replication and Credibility?Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Failing to replicate predicts citation declines in psychology.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.