- NEWS
- Clarification 17 October 2024
- Clarification 23 October 2024
‘Doing good science is hard’: retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8
Updates & Corrections
-
Clarification 17 October 2024: This article has been amended to clarify Berna Devezer’s field of study and to emphasize that not all of the authors of the original study signed the response to the retraction.
-
Clarification 23 October 2024: This article has been changed to emphasize the range of issues flagged in a preprint about the retracted paper and the source of the statement that 86% of replication efforts were successful.
References
Protzko, J. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. 8, 311–319 (2023).
Protzko, J. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01997-3 (2024).
Protzko, J., Zedelius, C. M. & Schooler, J. W. Psychol. Sci. 30, 1584–1591 (2019).
Bak-Coleman, J. & Devezer, B. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5u3kj (2024).
Bak-Coleman, J. & Devezer, B. Nature Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01982-w (2024).
Protzko, L. et al. Preprint at https://osf.io/2s94g (2024).
Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science?
Reproducibility trial publishes two conclusions for one paper
How to make your research reproducible
A controlled trial for reproducibility