Claims about scientific rigour require rigour
This is the published critique of a paper reporting that rigorous methods produce very high replication rates. Its argument, carried in its title, is that a claim about scientific rigour has to meet the standard it recommends, and that the original analysis did not support the conclusion drawn from it. The outcome is the part this vault needs on the record: the article being criticised was subsequently retracted. The episode is worth keeping because the retracted claim was an encouraging one, that the replication problem is solved by better practice, and encouraging claims travel further and are corrected more slowly than discouraging ones. Anyone meeting the original figure should know it no longer stands. Written without an abstract, from the title and the publication record of the article it addresses.
This is the published critique of a paper reporting that rigorous methods produce very high replication rates. Its argument, carried in its title, is that a claim about scientific rigour has to meet the standard it recommends, and that the original analysis did not support the conclusion drawn from it. The outcome is the part this vault needs on the record: the article being criticised was subsequently retracted. The episode is worth keeping because the retracted claim was an encouraging one, that the replication problem is solved by better practice, and encouraging claims travel further and are corrected more slowly than discouraging ones. Anyone meeting the original figure should know it no longer stands. Written without an abstract, from the title and the publication record of the article it addresses.
Written from the the paper's title and the publication record of the article it responds to.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
The critique that prompted the retraction.
Where we use it
- What Forty-One Participants Buys, Why We Look
Reliability of this reference
The link below was matched against the publisher's record on title, first author and year, and all three agree.
The source
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01982-w
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01982-w