Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36701303›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process.

Hannah Fraser, Martin Bush, Bonnie C Wintle, Fallon Mody, Eden T Smith, Anca M Hanea, Elliot Gould, Victoria Hemming, Daniel G Hamilton, Libby Rumpff and 21 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors.

Hannah FraserMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2443-4463
Martin BushMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9018-4373
Bonnie C WintleMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Fallon ModyMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Eden T SmithMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anca M HaneaMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3870-5949
Elliot GouldMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6585-538X
Victoria HemmingMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Daniel G HamiltonMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Libby RumpffMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David P WilkinsonMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9560-6499
Ross PearsonMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Felix Singleton ThornMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Raquel AshtonMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aaron WillcoxMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2536-2596
Charles T GrayMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew HeadMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melissa RossMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rebecca GroenewegenMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alexandru MarcociCentre for Argument Technology, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5780-0805
Ans VercammenCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Timothy H ParkerDepartment of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington, United States of America.
Rink HoekstraFaculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Shinichi NakagawaSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David R MandelDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Don van RavenzwaaijFaculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marissa McBrideCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Richard O SinnottMelbourne eResearch Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter VeskMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark BurgmanCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Fiona FidlerMetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies.

Indexed as

Behavioral SciencesData AccuracyCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansPeer ReviewReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36701303
PMCPMC9879480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.