Kelly Clint D
Département des Sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
PeerJ. 2019 Sep 10;7:e7654. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7654. eCollection 2019.
The recent replication crisis has caused several scientific disciplines to self-reflect on the frequency with which they replicate previously published studies and to assess their success in such endeavours. The rate of replication, however, has yet to be assessed for ecology and evolution. Here, I survey the open-access ecology and evolution literature to determine how often ecologists and evolutionary biologists replicate, or at least claim to replicate, previously published studies. I found that approximately 0.023% of ecology and evolution studies are described by their authors as replications. Two of the 11 original-replication study pairs provided sufficient statistical detail for three effects so as to permit a formal analysis of replication success. Replicating authors correctly concluded that they replicated an original effect in two cases; in the third case, my analysis suggests that the finding by the replicating authors was consistent with the original finding, contrary the conclusion of "replication failure" by the authors.
最近的复制危机促使多个科学学科反思他们重复先前发表研究的频率，并评估他们在这些努力中的成功率。然而，生态学和进化领域的复制率尚未得到评估。在这里，我调查了开放获取的生态学和进化文献，以确定生态学家和进化生物学家多久重复一次，或者至少声称重复，先前发表的研究。我发现，约0.023%的生态学和进化研究被作者描述为重复研究。在11对原始-重复研究对中，有两对提供了足够的统计细节以分析三种效应，从而能够对复制成功率进行正式分析。重复研究的作者在两个案例中正确地得出他们重复了原始效应的结论；在第三个案例中，我的分析表明，重复研究的作者的发现与原始发现一致，这与作者得出的“复制失败”结论相反。
