e-ISSN: Pending
Negative / Null Result ReportOpen accessDecision Sciences· cited by 10

No relationship between researcher impact and replication effect: an analysis of five studies with 100 replications

John Protzko; Jonathan W. Schooler · 2020 · PeerJ

WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate

The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.

Abstract

What explanation is there when teams of researchers are unable to successfully replicate already established ‘canonical’ findings? One suggestion that has been put forward, but left largely untested, is that those researchers who fail to replicate prior studies are of low ‘expertise and diligence’ and lack the skill necessary to successfully replicate the conditions of the original experiment. Here we examine the replication success of 100 scientists of differing ‘expertise and diligence’ who attempted to replicate five different studies. Using a bibliometric tool ( h -index) as our indicator

Abstract by John Protzko; Jonathan W. Schooler, PeerJ (2020) — licensed CC BY 4.0.

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.

WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.

Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.7717/peerj.8014