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. "

This article was originally submitted for publication to the Editor of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS) in 2015. When the submitted manuscript was subsequently posted online (Silberzahn et al., 2015), it received some media attention, and two of the authors were invited to write a brief commentary in Nature advocating for greater crowdsourcing of data analysis by scientists. This commentary, arguing that crowdsourced research "can balance discussions, validate findings and better inform policy" (Silberzahn & Uhlmann, 2015, p. 189), included a new figure that displayed the analytic teams' effectsize estimates and cited the submitted manuscript as the source of the findings, with a link to the preprint. However, the authors forgot to add a citation of the Nature commentary to the final published version of the AMPPS article or to note that the main findings had been previously publicized via the commentary, the online preprint, research presentations at conferences and universities, and media reports by other people. The authors regret the oversight.

Twenty-nine teams involving 61 analysts used the same dataset to address the same research question: whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark skin toned players than light skin toned players. Analytic approaches varied widely across teams, and estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.89 to 2.93 in odds ratio units, with a median of 1.31. Twenty teams (69%) found a statistically significant positive effect and nine teams (31%) observed a non-significant relationship. Overall 29 different analyses used 21 unique combinations of covariates. We found that neither analysts' prior beliefs about the effect, nor their level of expertise, nor peer-reviewed quality of analysis readily explained variation in analysis outcomes. This suggests that significant variation in analysis of complex data may be difficult to avoid, even by experts with honest intentions. Crowdsourcing data analysis, a strategy by which numerous research teams are recruited to simultaneously investigate the same research question, makes transparent how defensible, yet subjective analytic choices influence research results.

No abstract