Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process.
Fraser, Hannah; Bush, Martin; Wintle, Bonnie C; Mody, Fallon; Smith, Eden T; Hanea, Anca M; Gould, Elliot; Hemming, Victoria; Hamilton, Daniel G; Rumpff, Libby; Wilkinson, David P; Pearson, Ross; Singleton Thorn, Felix; Ashton, Raquel; Willcox, Aaron; Gray, Charles T; Head, Andrew; Ross, Melissa; Groenewegen, Rebecca; Marcoci, Alexandru; Vercammen, Ans; Parker, Timothy H; Hoekstra, Rink; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Mandel, David R; van Ravenzwaaij, Don; McBride, Marissa; Sinnott, Richard O; Vesk, Peter; Burgman, Mark; Fidler, Fiona.
Afiliación
  • Fraser H; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Bush M; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Wintle BC; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Mody F; Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Smith ET; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Hanea AM; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Gould E; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Hemming V; Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Hamilton DG; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Rumpff L; Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Wilkinson DP; Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Pearson R; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Singleton Thorn F; Martin Conservation Decisions Lab, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
  • Ashton R; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Willcox A; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Gray CT; Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Head A; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Ross M; Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Groenewegen R; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Marcoci A; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Vercammen A; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Parker TH; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Hoekstra R; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Nakagawa S; School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
  • Mandel DR; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • van Ravenzwaaij D; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • McBride M; MetaMelb Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Sinnott RO; Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Vesk P; Centre for Argument Technology, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.
  • Burgman M; Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Fidler F; School of Communication and Arts, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
PLoS One ; 18(1): e0274429, 2023.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36701303
ABSTRACT
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.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ciencias de la Conducta / Exactitud de los Datos Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ciencias de la Conducta / Exactitud de los Datos Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia
...