I'm not an academic, but I notice a trend in the top journals where replication studies aren't taken with the same glamour as original studies. Considering mountains of recent research show the majority of studies in many fields may in fact be irreproducible 1 2 3 4 etc, how can journals as a whole be taken seriously?

As a scientist, surely the scientific method must be respected, and one tenet of that method is reproducibility. This fundamental part of science seems to have taken a backdoor seat, and is not taken too seriously it seems. Be it due to funding, lack of prestige, or whatever. The end results are tainted/irreproducible studies that are cited many hundreds of times, distorting the truth of the world.

I respect there are individual initiatives recently to replicate large numbers of studies, but replication should be the norm, not the exception.

My question is, why are prestigious journals relied upon in terms of status, knowledge and information exchange, when in fact the replication rates of their studies are quite low, and there is no guarantee of any study you publish, cite or rely upon actually being accurate unless it's been replicated?

closed as unclear what you're asking by jakebeal, Brian Borchers, David Richerby, Peter Jansson, aeismail May 16 '15 at 16:21

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Stack Exchange is not for rants, no matter their possible truth or value. – Zev Chonoles May 16 '15 at 1:46
  • Zev, feel free to edit the question. But I'm honestly attempting to gain an insight into this phenomena. – user4779 May 16 '15 at 1:52
  • 1
    I am voting to put this on hold as too broad for the moment. You are asking three very different questions: 1) How about this reproducibility problem? 2) Are publications meaningful when stripped of technical jargon? 3) What should we do instead of journals? Please edit to focus on one of these. – jakebeal May 16 '15 at 2:28
  • I've amended the question to focus on point 1) The reproducibility problem, and the reliance of knowledge and directions of research based on studies that haven't been independently verified. – user4779 May 16 '15 at 5:38
  • 1
    @Alexandros,There is no doubt that a vast quantity of published studies have revolutionized and continue to revolutionize our world, but the evidence seems to suggest that more fraud and irreplicable studies are never detected than those few cases that are found and made public. If which studies are correct or not is esoteric and available only to insiders in that community, how are politicians, entrepreneurs or other people who base decisions off science supposed to make informed decisions as to whether the study they're reading is even correct? Why is replication not held as a gold standard? – user4779 May 16 '15 at 7:38

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.