The role of replication studies in ecology

Abstract

Recent large-scale projects in other disciplines have shown that results often fail to replicate when studies are repeated. The conditions contributing to this problem are also present in ecology but there have not been any equivalent replication projects. Here we examine ecologists’ understanding of and opinions about replication studies. When asked what percentage of ecological studies are replicated, the median response given by ecologists is 10%. The majority of ecologists in our sample considered replication studies to be important (97%), not prevalent enough (91%), worth funding even given limited resources (61%), and suitable for publication in all journals (62%). However, there is a disconnect between this enthusiasm and the prevalence of direct replication studies in the literature which, is much lower than our participants’ estimate of 10%. This may be explained by the obstacles our participants identified including the difficulty of conducting replication studies and of funding and publishing them. We conclude by offering suggestions for how replications could be better integrated into ecological research.

A proposal to advance theory and promote collaboration in tropical biology by supporting replications

“…The assertion that EBE research cannot be replicated may stem from confusion regarding precisely what constitutes a “replication,” especially with regards to geography and species identity (reviewed in Fraser et al., 2020; Nakagawa & Parker, 2015). If the original claim is explicitly bounded by geography or species identity, then to qualify as a replication the methodology must respect those restrictions.…”

“…Shifting the current research paradigm to one that values such replications requires two things: an EBE community that recognizes their value (Fraser et al., 2020) and providing the incentives to carry them out (Fidler et al., 2017; Nakagawa & Parker, 2015). Academic societies are uniquely poised to both promote the value of replications and provide the needed incentives.…”

Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

“…If journals can relieve the pressure for positive/significant results, the incentives to undertake questionable practices will cease to exist (Nilsen et al, 2020), and counter publication biases (Nichols et al, 2019). Replications do not suffer the lower citations rates that journals fear (Forstmeier et al, 2017), and researchers welcome them (Fraser et al, 2019). We argue that replication studies in herpetology would accumulate citations faster (along with original study) as they further validate or refute findings.…”

The REPRISE Project: Protocol for an Evaluation of Reproducibility and Replicability in Syntheses of Evidence

“…Authors will be given an opportunity to suggest other materials they believe systematic reviewers should share, and facilitators or barriers not listed in the survey. Finally, we will gauge authors' understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews, adapting the questions asked in previous studies evaluating researchers views on replication studies (48)(49)(50).…”