Talk:3117: Replication Crisis

I believe the current explanation is a bit missing the point. It's supposed to mean that the authors shown in the comic failed to reproduce the result of the papers claiming that there are replication crisis, and therefore the original claim that there is a replication crisis going on is unfounded (since the papers claiming it cannot be replicated), and comically the headline in the last panel takes this to the next level by saying that this means there was no replication crisis to begin with.

Justhalf (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly accepts the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (before the currently unfolding catastrophe), the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet another predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there was a Journal of Irreproducible Results. "So what happened to it?" "That's what they all are now." 2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)