Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

Replication games: how to make reproducibility research more systematic

In some areas of social science, around half of studies can’t be replicated. A new test-fast, fail-fast initiative aims to show what research is hot — and what’s not.
By
  1. Abel Brodeur

    1. Abel Brodeur is an associate professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, Canada, and is the chair at the Institute for Replication.

  2. Anna Dreber

    1. Anna Dreber is a professor of economics at the Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden, and the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and is a co-director at the Institute for Replication.

  3. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia

    1. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia is an assistant project scientist with the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, California, and a co-director at the Institute for Replication.

  4. Edward Miguel

    1. Edward Miguel is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-director at the Institute for Replication.

Illustration of a group of scientists in a gym watching whilst research papers work out with weights and do gymnastics.

Illustrations by David Parkins

In October last year, one of us (A.B.) decided to run an ad hoc workshop at a research centre in Oslo, to try to replicate papers from economics journals. Instead of the handful of locals who were expected to attend, 70 people from across Europe signed up. The message was clear: researchers want to replicate studies.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 621, 684-686 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02997-5

References

  1. Open Science Collaboration. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Camerer, C. F. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. 2, 637–644 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Camerer, C. F. et al. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cova, F. et al. Rev. Phil. Psychol. 12, 9–44 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ankel-Peters, J., Fiala, N. & Neubauer, F. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 212, 219–232 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Botvinik-Nezer, R. et al. Nature 582, 84–88 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links