Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science.

Replication-an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice-is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.

How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?

BACKGROUND: Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear how commonly these products are shared, and what factors are associated with sharing. Our objective was to evaluate how frequently oncology researchers make data and code available and explore factors associated with sharing. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 306 cancer-related articles indexed in PubMed in 2019 which studied research subjects with a cancer diagnosis was performed. All articles were independently screened for eligibility by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence of affirmative sharing declarations and the rate with which declarations connected to data complying with key FAIR principles (e.g. posted to a recognised repository, assigned an identifier, data license outlined, non-proprietary formatting). We also investigated associations between sharing rates and several journal characteristics (e.g. sharing policies, publication models), study characteristics (e.g. cancer rarity, study design), open science practices (e.g. pre-registration, pre-printing) and subsequent citation rates between 2020 and 2021. RESULTS: One in five studies declared data were publicly available (59/306, 19%, 95% CI: 15-24%). However, when data availability was investigated this percentage dropped to 16% (49/306, 95% CI: 12-20%), and then to less than 1% (1/306, 95% CI: 0-2%) when data were checked for compliance with key FAIR principles. While only 4% of articles that used inferential statistics reported code to be available (10/274, 95% CI: 2-6%), the odds of reporting code to be available were 5.6 times higher for researchers who shared data. Compliance with mandatory data and code sharing policies was observed in 48% (14/29) and 0% (0/6) of articles, respectively. However, 88% of articles (45/51) included data availability statements when required. Policies that encouraged data sharing did not appear to be any more effective than not having a policy at all. The only factors associated with higher rates of data sharing were studying rare cancers and using publicly available data to complement original research. CONCLUSIONS: Data and code sharing in oncology occurs infrequently, and at a lower rate than would be expected given the prevalence of mandatory sharing policies. There is also a large gap between those declaring data to be available, and those archiving data in a way that facilitates its reuse. We encourage journals to actively check compliance with sharing policies, and researchers consult community-accepted guidelines when archiving the products of their research.

Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.

Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing.

Communication and advocacy approaches that influence attitudes and behaviors are key to addressing conservation problems, and the way an issue is framed can affect how people view, judge, and respond to an issue. Responses to conservation interventions can also be influenced by subtle wording changes in statements that may appeal to different values, activate social norms, influence a person's affect or mood, or trigger certain biases, each of which can differently influence the resulting engagement, attitudes, and behavior. We contend that by strategically considering how conservation communications are framed, they can be made more effective with little or no additional cost. Key framing considerations include, emphasizing things that matter to the audience, evoking helpful social norms, reducing psychological distance, leveraging useful biases, and, where practicable, testing messages. These lessons will help communicators think strategically about how to frame messages for greater effect.

Cinco Lecciones para Dirigir un Encuadre Más Efectivo del Mensaje de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Resumen Las estrategias de comunicación y defensa que influyen sobre las actitudes y comportamientos son muy importantes para abordar los problemas de conservación. La manera en la que se encuadra un tema puede afectar cómo las personas lo ven, lo juzgan y cómo responden a él. Las respuestas a las intervenciones de conservación también pueden estar influenciadas por cambios sutiles en la redacción de las declaraciones que pueden exhortar a valores distintos, activar las normas sociales, influir sobre el afecto o humor de una persona o producir ciertos sesgos, cada uno de los cuales puede influir de manera diferente sobre la participación, el comportamiento y las actitudes resultantes. Sostenemos que al considerar estratégicamente cómo se encuadra la comunicación de la conservación, ésta puede volverse más efectiva con muy poco o ningún valor adicional. Algunas consideraciones importantes son el énfasis en las cosas que le importan al público, la evocación de las normas sociales útiles, la reducción de la distancia psicológica, el aprovechamiento de los sesgos útiles y, en donde pueda practicarse, el ensayo de mensajes. Estas lecciones ayudarán a los comunicadores a pensar estratégicamente sobre cómo encuadrar sus mensajes para obtener un mayor efecto.

Metaresearch for Evaluating Reproducibility in Ecology and Evolution.

Recent replication projects in other disciplines have uncovered disturbingly low levels of reproducibility, suggesting that those research literatures may contain unverifiable claims. The conditions contributing to irreproducibility in other disciplines are also present in ecology. These include a large discrepancy between the proportion of "positive" or "significant" results and the average statistical power of empirical research, incomplete reporting of sampling stopping rules and results, journal policies that discourage replication studies, and a prevailing publish-or-perish research culture that encourages questionable research practices. We argue that these conditions constitute sufficient reason to systematically evaluate the reproducibility of the evidence base in ecology and evolution. In some cases, the direct replication of ecological research is difficult because of strong temporal and spatial dependencies, so here, we propose metaresearch projects that will provide proxy measures of reproducibility.

Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data.

Many journals in ecology and evolutionary biology encourage or require authors to make their data and code available alongside articles. In this study we investigated how often this data and code could be used together, when both were available, to computationally reproduce results published in articles. We surveyed the data and code sharing practices of 177 meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology journals published between 2015-17: 60% of articles shared data only, 1% shared code only, and 15% shared both data and code. In each of the articles which had shared both (n = 26), we selected a target result and attempted to reproduce it. Using the shared data and code files, we successfully reproduced the targeted results in 27-73% of the 26 articles, depending on the stringency of the criteria applied for a successful reproduction. The results from this sample of meta-analyses in the 2015-17 literature can provide a benchmark for future meta-research studies gauging the computational reproducibility of published research in ecology and evolutionary biology.

Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade. METHODS: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors. RESULTS: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.

What do Australians affected by cancer think about oncology researchers sharing research data? A cross-sectional survey.

AIM: Previous research has shown patients and the public in Australia generally support medical researchers in making de-identified research data available to other scientists. However, this research has focussed on certain types of data and recipients. We surveyed Australians affected by cancer to characterize their attitudes toward the sharing of research data with multiple third parties, including the public. METHODS: A short, anonymous online survey of Australians with a previous diagnosis of cancer was advertised between October 27, 2022, and February 27, 2023. Quantitative responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were coded deductively and summarised using content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 551 respondents contributed data to the survey. There was strong support for cancer researchers sharing non-human and de-identified human research data with clinicians (90% and 95%, respectively) and non-profit researchers (both 94%). However, fewer participants supported sharing data with for-profit researchers (both 64%) or publicly (both 61%). When asked if they would hypothetically consent to researchers at their treatment location using and sharing their de-identified data publicly, only half agreed. In contrast, after being shown a visual representation of the de-identified survey data, 80% of respondents supported sharing it publicly. CONCLUSION: Australians affected by cancer support the sharing of research data, particularly with clinicians and non-profit researchers. Our results also imply that visualization of the data to be shared may enhance support for making it publicly available. These results should help alleviate any concerns about research participants' attitudes toward data sharing, as well as boost researchers' motivation for sharing.

The perception of positive and negative facial expressions in unilateral brain-damaged patients: A meta-analysis.

How the brain is lateralised for emotion processing remains a key question in contemporary neuropsychological research. The right hemisphere hypothesis asserts that the right hemisphere dominates emotion processing, whereas the valence hypothesis holds that positive emotion is processed in the left hemisphere and negative emotion is controlled by the right hemisphere. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess unilateral brain-damaged individuals' performance on tasks of facial emotion perception according to valence. A systematic search of the literature identified seven articles that met the conservative selection criteria and could be included in a meta-analysis. A total of 12 meta-analyses of facial expression perception were constructed assessing identification and labelling tasks according to valence and the side of brain damage. The results demonstrated that both left and right hemisphere damage leads to impairments in emotion perception (identification and labelling) irrespective of valence. Importantly, right hemisphere damage prompted more pronounced emotion perception impairment than left hemisphere damage, across valence, suggesting right hemisphere dominance for emotion perception. Furthermore, right hemisphere damage was associated with a larger tendency for impaired perception of negative than positive emotion across identification and labelling tasks. Overall the findings support Adolphs, Jansari, and Tranel (2001) model whereby the right hemisphere preferentially processes negative facial expressions and both hemispheres process positive facial expressions.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Forward citation searches were also performed on 30 August 2022. REVIEW METHODS: Meta-research studies that investigated data or code sharing across a sample of scientific articles presenting original medical and health research were identified. Two authors screened records, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted summary data from study reports when individual participant data could not be retrieved. Key outcomes of interest were the prevalence of statements that declared that data or code were publicly or privately available (declared availability) and the success rates of retrieving these products (actual availability). The associations between data and code availability and several factors (eg, journal policy, type of data, trial design, and human participants) were also examined. A two stage approach to meta-analysis of individual participant data was performed, with proportions and risk ratios pooled with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: The review included 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 specialties. Eligible studies examined a median of 195 primary articles (interquartile range 113-475), with a median publication year of 2015 (interquartile range 2012-2018). Only eight studies (8%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a prevalence of declared and actual public data availability of 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 11%) and 2% (1% to 3%), respectively, between 2016 and 2021. For public code sharing, both the prevalence of declared and actual availability were estimated to be <0.5% since 2016. Meta-regressions indicated that only declared public data sharing prevalence estimates have increased over time. Compliance with mandatory data sharing policies ranged from 0% to 100% across journals and varied by type of data. In contrast, success in privately obtaining data and code from authors historically ranged between 0% and 37% and 0% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The review found that public code sharing was persistently low across medical research. Declarations of data sharing were also low, increasing over time, but did not always correspond to actual sharing of data. The effectiveness of mandatory data sharing policies varied substantially by journal and type of data, a finding that might be informative for policy makers when designing policies and allocating resources to audit compliance. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7SX8U.

Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups.

This paper explores judgements about the replicability of social and behavioural sciences research and what drives those judgements. Using a mixed methods approach, it draws on qualitative and quantitative data elicited from groups using a structured approach called the IDEA protocol ('investigate', 'discuss', 'estimate' and 'aggregate'). Five groups of five people with relevant domain expertise evaluated 25 research claims that were subject to at least one replication study. Participants assessed the probability that each of the 25 research claims would replicate (i.e. that a replication study would find a statistically significant result in the same direction as the original study) and described the reasoning behind those judgements. We quantitatively analysed possible correlates of predictive accuracy, including self-rated expertise and updating of judgements after feedback and discussion. We qualitatively analysed the reasoning data to explore the cues, heuristics and patterns of reasoning used by participants. Participants achieved 84% classification accuracy in predicting replicability. Those who engaged in a greater breadth of reasoning provided more accurate replicability judgements. Some reasons were more commonly invoked by more accurate participants, such as 'effect size' and 'reputation' (e.g. of the field of research). There was also some evidence of a relationship between statistical literacy and accuracy.

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process.

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies.

Error bars in experimental biology.

Error bars commonly appear in figures in publications, but experimental biologists are often unsure how they should be used and interpreted. In this article we illustrate some basic features of error bars and explain how they can help communicate data and assist correct interpretation. Error bars may show confidence intervals, standard errors, standard deviations, or other quantities. Different types of error bars give quite different information, and so figure legends must make clear what error bars represent. We suggest eight simple rules to assist with effective use and interpretation of error bars.

Decision making in a human population living sustainably.

The Tiwi people of northern Australia have managed natural resources continuously for 6000-8000 years. Tiwi management objectives and outcomes may reflect how they gather information about the environment. We qualitatively analyzed Tiwi documents and management techniques to examine the relation between the social and physical environment of decision makers and their decision-making strategies. We hypothesized that principles of bounded rationality, namely, the use of efficient rules to navigate complex decision problems, explain how Tiwi managers use simple decision strategies (i.e., heuristics) to make robust decisions. Tiwi natural resource managers reduced complexity in decision making through a process that gathers incomplete and uncertain information to quickly guide decisions toward effective outcomes. They used management feedback to validate decisions through an information loop that resulted in long-term sustainability of environmental use. We examined the Tiwi decision-making processes relative to management of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) fisheries and contrasted their management with the state government's management of barramundi. Decisions that enhanced the status of individual people and their attainment of aspiration levels resulted in reliable resource availability for Tiwi consumers. Different decision processes adopted by the state for management of barramundi may not secure similarly sustainable outcomes.

Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science.

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.

Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process.

Journal peer review regulates the flow of ideas through an academic discipline and thus has the power to shape what a research community knows, actively investigates, and recommends to policymakers and the wider public. We might assume that editors can identify the 'best' experts and rely on them for peer review. But decades of research on both expert decision-making and peer review suggests they cannot. In the absence of a clear criterion for demarcating reliable, insightful, and accurate expert assessors of research quality, the best safeguard against unwanted biases and uneven power distributions is to introduce greater transparency and structure into the process. This paper argues that peer review would therefore benefit from applying a series of evidence-based recommendations from the empirical literature on structured expert elicitation. We highlight individual and group characteristics that contribute to higher quality judgements, and elements of elicitation protocols that reduce bias, promote constructive discussion, and enable opinions to be objectively and transparently aggregated.

Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher's policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. METHODS: The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). DISCUSSION: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

Reducing overconfidence in the interval judgments of experts.

Elicitation of expert opinion is important for risk analysis when only limited data are available. Expert opinion is often elicited in the form of subjective confidence intervals; however, these are prone to substantial overconfidence. We investigated the influence of elicitation question format, in particular the number of steps in the elicitation procedure. In a 3-point elicitation procedure, an expert is asked for a lower limit, upper limit, and best guess, the two limits creating an interval of some assigned confidence level (e.g., 80%). In our 4-step interval elicitation procedure, experts were also asked for a realistic lower limit, upper limit, and best guess, but no confidence level was assigned; the fourth step was to rate their anticipated confidence in the interval produced. In our three studies, experts made interval predictions of rates of infectious diseases (Study 1, n = 21 and Study 2, n = 24: epidemiologists and public health experts), or marine invertebrate populations (Study 3, n = 34: ecologists and biologists). We combined the results from our studies using meta-analysis, which found average overconfidence of 11.9%, 95% CI [3.5, 20.3] (a hit rate of 68.1% for 80% intervals)-a substantial decrease in overconfidence compared with previous studies. Studies 2 and 3 suggest that the 4-step procedure is more likely to reduce overconfidence than the 3-point procedure (Cohen's d = 0.61, [0.04, 1.18]).