40% of peered reviewed scientific articles can't be reproduced

[shunyadragon]

science will always be a work in progress.

True

scientist will always be able prove their predecessors to be wrong or only partially correct.

Science proves nothing.

only when we know everything could that process end.
That target will never be fully attained.

Sort of, but needs clarification.

 

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely false:
Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during the course of an investigation. While some forensic scientists travel to the scene of the crime to collect the evidence themselves, others occupy a laboratory role, performing analysis on objects brought to them by other individuals... -- Forensic science - Wikipedia

Yes, they do develop hypothesis based on the forensic evidence and make predictions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

It goes to show that anything that sounds good and agrees with current theory will pass peer review and be published. Then these published papers will be quoted as fact, when most of them can't be reproduced and are mere fiction.....

And this in a field where the results could mean new drugs to save lives. Not in a purely hypothetical field such as evolutionary biology..... where no one bothers to try since the outcome doesn't change anything.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

It goes to show that anything that sounds good and agrees with current theory will pass peer review and be published. Then these published papers will be quoted as fact, when most of them can't be reproduced and are mere fiction.....

And this in a field where the results could mean new drugs to save lives. Not in a purely hypothetical field such as evolutionary biology..... where no one bothers to try since the outcome doesn't change anything.....

Still pushing conspiracy nonsense. You seem to forget that creationist claims are much closer to 0%, if they can get through peer review in the first place. Peer review is not perfect. No one has ever claimed that it is. It is the first step in finding out if a new idea is correct, not the last one. In fact when creationist ideas are so wrong that they do not even pass peer review one wonders why they would attack the process that they cannot get through.

Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others

 

[shunyadragon]

It goes to show that anything that sounds good and agrees with current theory will pass peer review and be published. Then these published papers will be quoted as fact, when most of them can't be reproduced and are mere fiction.....

Not true of science. This is an anti-science rant without meaning.

And this in a field where the results could mean new drugs to save lives. Not in a purely hypothetical field such as evolutionary biology..... where no one bothers to try since the outcome doesn't change anything.....

Biological evolution is no more a purely hypothetical field. The same science that is the foundation of ALL science is the foundation of the science of evolution.

What I hear here is a convoluted religious agenda speaking.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Still pushing conspiracy nonsense. You seem to forget that creationist claims are much closer to 0%, if they can get through peer review in the first place. Peer review is not perfect. No one has ever claimed that it is. It is the first step in finding out if a new idea is correct, not the last one. In fact when creationist ideas are so wrong that they do not even pass peer review one wonders why they would attack the process that they cannot get through.

Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others

not a conspiracy. These are broadly agreed to 'peer reviewed studies' as a matter of fact

 

[Subduction Zone]

not a conspiracy. These are broadly agreed to 'peer reviewed studies' as a matter of fact

What are you trying to say here?

 

[whirlingmerc]

What are you trying to say here?

Not a conspiracy theory. This is a peer reviewed conclusion about peer reviewed articles

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not a conspiracy theory. This is a peer reviewed conclusion about peer reviewed articles

How is it a bad thing? The whole point of peer review is to attempt to replicate studies to see if the result are the same or not, to gain further input and advice, and contribute one way or another to the collective knowledge of science. And it's a basic fact humans mess up and aren't always correct. So of course a good number of studies won't be able to be replicated. Science assumes that will happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not a conspiracy theory. This is a peer reviewed conclusion about peer reviewed articles.

. . . not a conspiracy. These are broadly agreed to 'peer reviewed studies' as a matter of fact

Needs clarification . . ., because you have not presented a coherent argument with a conclusion.

Your arguments concerning the nature of scientific peer reviewed papers and journals is a convoluted argument based on an anti-science religious agenda, and it was trashed long ago.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still pushing conspiracy nonsense. You seem to forget that creationist claims are much closer to 0%, if they can get through peer review in the first place. Peer review is not perfect. No one has ever claimed that it is. It is the first step in finding out if a new idea is correct, not the last one. In fact when creationist ideas are so wrong that they do not even pass peer review one wonders why they would attack the process that they cannot get through.

Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others

It’s only you that seems to believe in conspiracies.

I agree you believe wholeheartedly in whatever they tell you to believe. I certainly don’t think you are part of a conspiracy..... wrong yes, conspiring, no.... you all aren’t smart enough to pull off a conspiracy....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How is it a bad thing? The whole point of peer review is to attempt to replicate studies to see if the result are the same or not, to gain further input and advice, and contribute one way or another to the collective knowledge of science. And it's a basic fact humans mess up and aren't always correct. So of course a good number of studies won't be able to be replicated. Science assumes that will happen.

Then maybe they need a pre replication journal that can’t be quoted by hundreds in their papers which have also not been replicated until most are simply taken as fact until someone decides to try one of them.

Then only once replicated could they be published into a final journal that could be cited as references.....

Solve everybody's complaint at once....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

not a conspiracy. These are broadly agreed to 'peer reviewed studies' as a matter of fact

He’s the only one mentioning conspiracies. Whenever he doesn’t like what someone says it’s got to be because of a conspiracy. I wholeheartedly agree they believe everything they wrote in those non-reproducible articles. Only an idiot would think they were part of a conspiracy to fool people. They just believed what they wrote no matter how wrong they were, and other people believed them too...

It’s human nature. We will believe anything that coincides with our personal belief system even if it’s wrong, just because we want to believe it’s true....

 

[shunyadragon]

Then maybe they need a pre replication journal that can’t be quoted by hundreds in their papers which have also not been replicated until most are simply taken as fact until someone decides to try one of them.

Then only once replicated could they be published into a final journal that could be cited as references.....

Solve everybody's complaint at once....

This has nothing to with the nature of scientific papers, and journals and the issue of whether and why they are reproducible or not. This issue was responded specifically from the scientific perspective early in the thread. The issue of whether research papers results are reproducible depends on the discipline, and the issues of reproducibility of each different discipline. Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This has nothing to with the nature of scientific papers, and journals and the issue of whether and why they are reproducible or not. This issue was responded specifically from the scientific perspective early in the thread. The issue of whether research papers results are reproducible depends on the discipline, and the issues of reproducibility of each different discipline. Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science

And if you had a journal that contained papers not reproduced and one that has been reproduced, people would know which papers are based upon reproducible results and which may not be valid.

They would not as quite a few do be citing papers not sound science as sound science.

How many of those papers found to not be reproducible do you think were quoted as legitimate sources of knowledge by others, before someone actually tried to reproduce the results? 98% of them being published in a respected peer reviewed journal?

What would further the increase in knowledge is to know what hasn’t yet been reproduced and what has. So if one wants to try to reproduce results for ones own research one can, but can always rely on results already reproduced.... It separates the may be from the probably is.....

It seems to me the only ones that would object would be those wanting to use questionable results as if they were true.... which gives them a 40% greater chance of being wrong and nobody knowing it....

It would also give grad students a place to start, being they could know which papers haven’t been reproduced and start there, either confirming or denying its validity and getting themselves published in the process.... furthering both their knowledge and the overall scientific knowledge.

Instead you want to lump everything together making it a hit or miss process, nobody knowing any papers validity unless they test it themselves....

So if you are a biologist but want to use a geological paper, you now have to spend 4 years studying geology so you can validate the paper just to use in your research, or just pray its correct and cite it anyways.....

 

[shunyadragon]

And if you had a journal that contained papers not reproduced and one that has been reproduced, people would know which papers are based upon reproducible results and which may not be valid.

They would not as quite a few do be citing papers not sound science as sound science.

How many of those papers found to not be reproducible do you think were quoted as legitimate sources of knowledge by others, before someone actually tried to reproduce the results? 98% of them being published in a respected peer reviewed journal?

What would further the increase in knowledge is to know what hasn’t yet been reproduced and what has. So if one wants to try to reproduce results for ones own research one can, but can always rely on results already reproduced.... It separates the may be from the probably is.....

It seems to me the only ones that would object would be those wanting to use questionable results as if they were true.... which gives them a 40% greater chance of being wrong and nobody knowing it....

It would also give grad students a place to start, being they could know which papers haven’t been reproduced and start there, either confirming or denying its validity and getting themselves published in the process....

Try again . . . have you been involved with journals and published papers. I have. What you said above makes absolutely no sense in terms of science and research. The issue depends on the different disciplines. Did you follow the references early in the thread?

Again . . .
This has nothing to with the nature of scientific papers, and journals and the issue of whether and why they are reproducible or not. This issue was responded specifically from the scientific perspective early in the thread. The issue of whether research papers results are reproducible depends on the discipline, and the issues of reproducibility of each different discipline. Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science.

Many research papers in Journals of applied sciences in behavioral sciences and medical journals have a high level of failure in reproducibility. Research in the basic sciences have a higher reproducible results.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Try again . . . have you been involved with journals and published papers. I have. What you said above makes absolutely no sense in terms of science and research. The issue depends on the different disciplines. Did you follow the references early in the thread?

Again . . .
This has nothing to with the nature of scientific papers, and journals and the issue of whether and why they are reproducible or not. This issue was responded specifically from the scientific perspective early in the thread. The issue of whether research papers results are reproducible depends on the discipline, and the issues of reproducibility of each different discipline. Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science

But lumped all together you don’t know which have been reproduced and which have not.

40% just in one discipline we’re not reproducible. Yet you can be sure many people cited them as references in their papers to support their conclusions because they had passed peer review....

As I said. Those that would object to knowing which have been reproduced and which have not, ate probably the ones that want to be able to publish and get cited without anyone knowing if their is any validity in their actual research......

Who would object to knowing which papers haven’t been reproduced except someone having a paper that hadn’t been reproduced????

So if you have been involved in the process, we’re you guilty of passing non reproducible papers or submitting papers that haven’t been reproduced??? Which might explain your objection....

 

[shunyadragon]

But lumped all together you don’t know which have been reproduced and which have not.

This is nonsense. You cannot lump the research the research from many different disciplines. Over time lines of research build on reproducible results and discard those that are not.

40% just in one discipline we’re not reproducible.

Which discipline?

Yet you can be sure many people cited them as references in their papers to support their conclusions because they had passed peer review.

Those that cite the references are those that try to reproduce the research within the discipline of the research.

60% were reproducible and the knowledge of science builds of those that are reproducible. This has been the history of hundreds of years of science.

As I said. Those that would object to knowing which have been reproduced and which have not, are probably the ones that want to be able to publish and get cited without anyone knowing if there is any validity in their actual research.

This that are citing the research are those repeating ind do similar research and that is how the problems of reproducibility is discovered,.....

Who would object to knowing which papers haven’t been reproduced except someone having a paper that hadn’t been reproduced????

Those that reproduce and cite the research and, of course, discover they are not reproducible,

You are still wandering in circles, and not referring to references cited early in the thread that describe the scientific view. Also, you are ignoring the foundation of science in all disciplines that are reproduced over the past several hundreds of years.

The bottomline is your line of reasoning just does not make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a conspiracy theory. This is a peer reviewed conclusion about peer reviewed articles

I never implied that it was. It only shows that peer review is not perfect, but no one claimed it to be. It is still the best method we have for getting new concepts into the world of science.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I never implied that it was. It only shows that peer review is not perfect, but no one claimed it to be. It is still the best method we have for getting new concepts into the world of science.

Yes... very much imperfect... interesting how various fields are quite different in repeatability. Economics seemed one of the better ones. Biology one of the worse.