Retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching(nature.com)

3 pointsby paulpauper3 mesi fa1 comments

Retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03178-8

1 comments

I'm not commenting to be contentious or antagonistic. Problems with reproducibility have been rampant in numerous fields for the past 15 years, for a variety of reasons. That's part of what makes the problem so difficult to address and remediate.

This was a particularly important retraction, as the original paper was about how social science research done right could be highly reproducible. When I poked around the article history on Pubmed a bit, I found the following:

>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.

The first caveat on 17 Oct 2024 doesn't seem significant. The second one might be (difficult to tell with minimal info!) but I don't have access to the full content. (I can only read the original paper in Nature and the "non clarified" retraction notice.) Might you know anything about the 2nd clarification?