Researchers have now attempted to test the legitimacy of psychological studies by replicating 100 studies where they discovered that they can reproduce the published results faster, less than half the time it took since the first time that study was conducted.
This new study is part of The Reproducibility Project: Psychology, where 270 scientists from all over the world have participated in the attempt to reproduce the results of studies that were published in the world's top three psychology journals in 2008.
This investigation is led by Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia where results show that the team successfully reproduced the studies in less than half of the time it took for those studies where 60 studies did not even prove to be legitimate enough.
Researchers strongly emphasized that they found no evidence of fraud but could not also confirm that the original results were patently wrong and/or false however, researchers suggest that the evidence that was presented in the majority of the published studies was not as strong as the study authors first believed.
According to co-author of the study, Cody Christopherson from the Southern Oregon University, this project is not to find evidence that anything is broken but rather, this is an example of how science works. He adds that in the finality of any science experiment, it is impossible to be wrong in the end, meaning it is part of a process to be wrong temporarily before getting the right results.
A study or research will be considered as reproducible when an independent research team tests an already published experiment where they apply almost original methods in conducting the original one and yielding the same results.
The concept of reproducibility is a crucial part of the process for obtaining evidence in order to strongly support a proposed theory in science.
This new study is conducted due to a controversial rise in the number of published papers being retracted when their findings could not be reproduced or when something wrong was discovered in their process or analysis.
Nosek explains that part of the problem is that, studies that yield more often than not findings that are rather unusual or unanticipated which will be more likely published compared to those studies that shows less interesting research results that examine the reproducibility of another's findings.
He adds that scientists want to focus on being able to contribute reliable knowledge however they also want to keep their job as a researcher in the field. In order to establish your name in science, these researchers need to earn publications where some results can be easier to publish than others, especially the ones that are considered as novelty or yield unexpected or exciting new paths in science.
Researchers more importantly note that this study is not only applicable to the field of psychology but it was also an issue in clinical medicine, cell biology, neuroscience, animal research and even economics. This study is published in the journal, Science.