Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones
Marta Serra-García; Uri Gneezy · 2021 · Science Advances
WASTE classifies this as Replication Failure · AI classification, approximate
A previously reported effect did not replicate here — verify it holds before you build on it.
Abstract (excerpt)
We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the…
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Negative / Null Result ReportWillingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results
Methods Dead-EndComparing multiple comparisons: practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test
Replication FailureInferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication
Negative / Null Result ReportMOBILE BANKING ADOPTION: APPLICATION OF DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY
Negative / Null Result ReportEnjoyment and social influence: predicting mobile payment adoption
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abd1705