Science & technology | Academic research

Experts are good at betting which scientific experiments can replicate

Despite some studies not being repeatable

EXCITING results from a scientific study are in effect meaningless if they cannot be replicated. All too often, at least in psychology experiments, that seems to be the case. A new report by a scientist who looks at this area, Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia, has once again showed that a high proportion of psychology studies failed to replicate. And this time, Dr Nosek and his colleagues may have found a shortcut to identify which fall into this category.

This article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline “Betting on the result”

Peak Valley: Why startups are going elsewhere

From the September 1st 2018 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from Science & technology

A person blowing about a pattern in the shape of a brain

Can you breathe stress away?

Scientists are only beginning to understand the links between the breath and the mind

The Economist’s science and technology internship

We invite applications for the 2025 Richard Casement internship


A man sits inside a pixelated pink brain while examining a clipboard, with colored squares falling from the brain

A better understanding of Huntington’s disease brings hope

Previous research seems to have misinterpreted what is going on


Is obesity a disease?

It wasn’t. But it is now

Volunteers with Down’s syndrome could help find Alzheimer’s drugs

Those with the syndrome have more of a protein implicated in dementia

Should you start lifting weights?

You’ll stay healthier for longer if you’re strong