Article Version of Record

The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists.

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Fetterman, A.
Sassenberg, K.

Other kind(s) of contributor

Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien

Abstract / Description

Scientists are dedicating more attention to replication efforts. While the scientific utility of replications is unquestionable, the impact of failed replication efforts and the discussions surrounding them deserve more attention. Specifically, the debates about failed replications on social media have led to worry, in some scientists, regarding reputation. In order to gain data-informed insights into these issues, we collected data from 281 published scientists. We assessed whether scientists overestimate the negative reputational effects of a failed replication in a scenario-based study. Second, we assessed the reputational consequences of admitting wrongness (versus not) as an original scientist of an effect that has failed to replicate. Our data suggests that scientists overestimate the negative reputational impact of a hypothetical failed replication effort. We also show that admitting wrongness about a non-replicated finding is less harmful to one's reputation than not admitting. Finally, we discovered a hint of evidence that feelings about the replication movement can be affected by whether replication efforts are aimed one's own work versus the work of another. Given these findings, we then present potential ways forward in these discussions.

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2015

Journal title

PLoS ONE

Volume

10

Page numbers

e0143723

Publication status

publishedVersion

Review status

peerReviewed

Is version of

10.1371/journal.pone.0143723

Citation

  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Fetterman, A.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Sassenberg, K.
  • Other kind(s) of contributor
    Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2017-08-28T11:11:03Z
  • Made available on
    2017-08-28T11:11:03Z
  • Date of first publication
    2015
  • Abstract / Description
    Scientists are dedicating more attention to replication efforts. While the scientific utility of replications is unquestionable, the impact of failed replication efforts and the discussions surrounding them deserve more attention. Specifically, the debates about failed replications on social media have led to worry, in some scientists, regarding reputation. In order to gain data-informed insights into these issues, we collected data from 281 published scientists. We assessed whether scientists overestimate the negative reputational effects of a failed replication in a scenario-based study. Second, we assessed the reputational consequences of admitting wrongness (versus not) as an original scientist of an effect that has failed to replicate. Our data suggests that scientists overestimate the negative reputational impact of a hypothetical failed replication effort. We also show that admitting wrongness about a non-replicated finding is less harmful to one's reputation than not admitting. Finally, we discovered a hint of evidence that feelings about the replication movement can be affected by whether replication efforts are aimed one's own work versus the work of another. Given these findings, we then present potential ways forward in these discussions.
  • Publication status
    publishedVersion
  • Review status
    peerReviewed
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/481
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.689
  • Is version of
    10.1371/journal.pone.0143723
  • Title
    The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists.
  • DRO type
    article
  • Leibniz institute name(s) / abbreviation(s)
    IWM
  • Leibniz subject classification
    Psychologie
  • Journal title
    PLoS ONE
  • Page numbers
    e0143723
  • Volume
    10
  • Visible tag(s)
    Version of Record