Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?
Fanelli argues against the framing that has become standard in discussions of scientific reliability. The reproducibility crisis narrative holds that most published findings are unreliable and that research practices have been getting worse. He reviews the evidence for both halves and finds it weak: the studies most often cited for the claim that most results are false are theoretical models rather than measurements, and the indicators that can be measured, including retraction rates and patterns of reported results, do not show the decline the narrative assumes. His alternative is not complacency. He argues that what has actually happened is a change in scale and in the tools available to check work, so that problems which were always present have become visible and correctable, and that describing this as a crisis discourages the scientists doing the correcting. This vault keeps it on file as the strongest statement of the case against the crisis framing, alongside the replication projects that argue the other way.
Fanelli argues against the framing that has become standard in discussions of scientific reliability. The reproducibility crisis narrative holds that most published findings are unreliable and that research practices have been getting worse. He reviews the evidence for both halves and finds it weak: the studies most often cited for the claim that most results are false are theoretical models rather than measurements, and the indicators that can be measured, including retraction rates and patterns of reported results, do not show the decline the narrative assumes. His alternative is not complacency. He argues that what has actually happened is a change in scale and in the tools available to check work, so that problems which were always present have become visible and correctable, and that describing this as a crisis discourages the scientists doing the correcting. This vault keeps it on file as the strongest statement of the case against the crisis framing, alongside the replication projects that argue the other way.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
retractions per retracting journal, errata and statistical reporting errors are flat over time.
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/10.1073/pnas.1708272114
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114