当前位置: X-MOL 学术American Psychologist › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The prevalence of direct replication articles in top-ranking psychology journals.
American Psychologist ( IF 12.3 ) Pub Date : 2024-10-17 , DOI: 10.1037/amp0001385
Beth Clarke,Pui Yu Katherine Lee,Sarah R Schiavone,Mijke Rhemtulla,Simine Vazire

Despite lip service about replication being a cornerstone of science, replications have historically received little real estate in the published literature. Following psychology's recent replication crisis, we assessed the prevalence of one type of replication contribution: direct replication articles-articles where a direct or close replication of a previously published study is one of the main contributions of the article. This prevalence provides one indicator of how much the field values and incentivizes this type of self-correction. We used a keyword search combined with manual checking to identify direct replication articles that were published from 2010 to 2021 in the 100 highest impact psychology journals. In total, only 0.2% of articles (169 articles out of 84,834) were direct replication articles. There was a small suggestive increase in the prevalence of direct replication articles over time. Additionally, journals with a stated policy of considering replication submissions (31% of journals) were 7.85 times more likely to publish direct replication articles than those without such a policy. Fifty-four out of 88 journals did not publish any direct replication articles in the 11 years surveyed. Our estimate is not the same as the prevalence of direct replication studies overall (direct replication results can be shared in many ways other than as direct replication articles in top journals). Ultimately, direct replication articles are still rare, with a few journals doing most of the heavy lifting. Based on these findings, we argue it would be premature to declare that psychology's replication crisis is over. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:


顶级心理学期刊中直接复制文章的普遍性。



尽管口头上说复制是科学的基石,但复制在已发表的文献中历来很少得到重视。在心理学最近的复制危机之后,我们评估了一种复制贡献的普遍性:直接复制文章——直接或接近复制以前发表的研究是文章的主要贡献之一的文章。这种普遍性提供了一个指标,表明字段对这种类型的自我校正的重视和激励程度。我们使用关键词搜索结合人工检查来确定 2010 年至 2021 年在 100 种影响最大的心理学期刊上发表的直接复制文章。总的来说,只有 0.2% 的文章(84,834 篇文章中的 169 篇)是直接复制文章。随着时间的推移,直接复制文章的流行率略有增加。此外,具有考虑重复提交的既定政策的期刊(31% 的期刊)发表直接复制文章的可能性是没有此类政策的期刊的 7.85 倍。在接受调查的 11 年中,88 种期刊中有 54 种没有发表任何直接复制的文章。我们的估计与直接复制研究的总体流行率不同(直接复制结果可以通过多种方式共享,而不是作为顶级期刊上的直接复制文章)。归根结底,直接复制文章仍然很少见,少数期刊承担了大部分繁重的工作。基于这些发现,我们认为现在宣布心理学的复制危机已经结束还为时过早。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2024-10-17
down
wechat
bug