52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Seemingly precognitive (prophetic) dreams may be a result of one's unconscious processing of environmental cues and having an implicit inference based on these cues manifest itself in one's dreams. We present two studies exploring this implicit processing hypothesis of precognitive dream experience. Study 1 investigated the relationship between implicit learning, transliminality, and precognitive dream belief and experience. Participants completed the Serial Reaction Time task and several questionnaires. We predicted a positive relationship between the variables. With the exception of relationships between transliminality and precognitive dream belief and experience, this prediction was not supported. Study 2 tested the hypothesis that differences in the ability to notice subtle cues explicitly might account for precognitive dream beliefs and experiences. Participants completed a modified version of the flicker paradigm. We predicted a negative relationship between the ability to explicitly detect changes and precognitive dream variables. This relationship was not found. There was also no relationship between precognitive dream belief and experience and implicit change detection.

A large proportion of the general population believes that dreams can provide information about future events that could not have been obtained by any known means. The present study identifies several factors associated with prophetic (precognitive) dream belief and experience. Participants (N = 672) were measured on demographic variables, sleep characteristics, and precognitive dream (PD) belief, experience, and frequency. Three 'sleep clusters' were identified based on the analysis of the sleep-related variables. Women were more likely to believe in PDs as well as experience them. There was a positive relationship of PD belief and experience with age and a negative one with education. Most notably, we found that a high frequency of PD experiences was associated with erratic sleep patterns and sleep medication use. The present study provides a basis for the development of further models explaining the prevalent phenomena of precognitive dream belief and experience.