Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459535›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024

Can a Good Theory Be Built Using Bad Ingredients?

Sarahanne M Field, Leonhard Volz, Artem Kaznatcheev, Noah van Dongen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How can we make sound replication decisions?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  2. What Makes a Good Theory? Interdisciplinary Perspectives.Computational brain & behavior · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Sarahanne M FieldUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Leonhard VolzUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Artem KaznatcheevUtrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Noah van DongenUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The replication crisis threatens to seriously impact theory development in the cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences. We canvas three desiderata of scientific theories (explanation, prediction, and unification) and argue that the extent to which failures of replication prove problematic depends on the primary purpose of a theory. If the aim is to explain how nature works, then accuracy-and thus replicability-of the findings on which the theory is built is essential. If the aim is to predict outcomes, then replicability of findings from which the predictive model or theory is built is only important as far as it affects the reliability and accuracy of the predictions. If the aim is to unify and organize disparate findings, then the replicability of findings plays a non-essential role. The result is that a multifaceted and nuanced perspective is required to assess the value of replicability and the need for replication studies. Specifying a theory's purpose and background commitments should clarify the debate on replication and contribute to better theory development in the cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences.

Indexed as

MetascienceReplicationReproducibilityTheory

Identifiers

PMID42459535
PMCPMC13298618

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.