The reliability of replications: a study in computational reproductions
Authors:
- Nate BreznauNate Breznau
- Eike Mark RinkeEREike Mark Rinke
- Alexander WuttkeAWAlexander Wuttke
- Muna AdemMAMuna Adem
- Jule AdriaansJAJule Adriaans
- Esra AkdenizEAEsra Akdeniz
- Amalia Alvarez-BenjumeaAAAmalia Alvarez-Benjumea
- Henrik K AndersenHAHenrik K Andersen
- Daniel AuerDADaniel Auer
- Flavio AzevedoFAFlavio Azevedo
- Oke BahnsenOBOke Bahnsen
- Ling BaiLBLing Bai
Open Access
- 19 March 2025
- journal article
- Published by The Royal Society in Royal Society Open Science
- Vol. 12 (3) , 241038
Abstract
This study investigates researcher variability in computational reproduction, an activity for which it is least expected. Eighty-five independent teams attempted numerical replication of results from an original study of policy preferences and immigration. Reproduction teams were randomly grouped into a ‘transparent group’ receiving original study and code or ‘opaque group’ receiving only a method and results description and no code. The transparent group mostly verified original results (95.7% same sign and p -value cutoff), while the opaque group had less success (89.3%). Second-decimal place exact numerical reproductions were less common (76.9 and 48.1%). Qualitative investigation of the workflows revealed many causes of error, including mistakes and procedural variations. When curating mistakes, we still find that only the transparent group was reliably successful. Our findings imply a need for transparency, but also more. Institutional checks and less subjective difficulty for researchers ‘doing reproduction’ would help, implying a need for better training. We also urge increased awareness of complexity in the research process and in ‘push button’ replications.Keywords
All Related Versions
Funding Information
- DeutscheForschungsGemeinschaft
- Agencia Nacionalde Investigación y Desarrollo
- Mannheim Centrefor European Social Research
This publication has 45 references indexed in Scilit:
- Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplinesScientific Data, 2021
- Time to get personal? The impact of researchers choices on the selection of treatment targets using the experience sampling methodologyJournal of Psychosomatic Research, 2020
- Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results.Psychological Bulletin, 2020
- Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselvesPLOS ONE, 2020
- Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal CognitionRoyal Society Open Science, 2018
- Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018
- The Quality of Response Time Data Inference: A Blinded, Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of Cognitive ModelsPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018
- Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broadening Perspectives from the Replication CrisisAnnual Review of Psychology, 2018
- An investigation of social class inequalities in general cognitive ability in two British birth cohortsThe British Journal of Sociology, 2017
- The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013)Behavior Research Methods, 2015