• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

复制的可靠性:一项关于计算再现的研究。

The reliability of replications: a study in computational reproductions.

作者信息

Breznau Nate, Rinke Eike Mark, Wuttke Alexander, Adem Muna, Adriaans Jule, Akdeniz Esra, Alvarez-Benjumea Amalia, Andersen Henrik K, Auer Daniel, Azevedo Flavio, Bahnsen Oke, Bai Ling, Balzer Dave, Bauer Paul C, Bauer Gerrit, Baumann Markus, Baute Sharon, Benoit Verena, Bernauer Julian, Berning Carl, Berthold Anna, Bethke Felix S, Biegert Thomas, Blinzler Katharina, Blumenberg Johannes N, Bobzien Licia, Bohman Andrea, Bol Thijs, Bostic Amie, Brzozowska Zuzanna, Burgdorf Katharina, Burger Kaspar, Busch Kathrin, Castillo Juan-Carlos, Chan Nathan, Christmann Pablo, Connelly Roxanne, Czymara Christian S, Damian Elena, de Rooij Eline A, Ecker Alejandro, Edelmann Achim, Eder Christina, Eger Maureen A, Ellerbrock Simon, Forke Anna, Forster Andrea, Freire Danilo, Gaasendam Chris, Gavras Konstantin, Gayle Vernon, Gessler Theresa, Gnambs Timo, Godefroidt Amélie, Grömping Max, Groß Martin, Gruber Stefan, Gummer Tobias, Hadjar Andreas, Halbherr Verena, Heisig Jan Paul, Hellmeier Sebastian, Heyne Stefanie, Hirsch Magdalena, Hjerm Mikael, Hochman Oshrat, Höffler Jan H, Hövermann Andreas, Hunger Sophia, Hunkler Christian, Huth-Stöckle Nora, Ignácz Zsófia S, Israel Sabine, Jacobs Laura, Jacobsen Jannes, Jaeger Bastian, Jungkunz Sebastian, Jungmann Nils, Kanjana Jennifer, Kauff Mathias, Khan Salman, Khatua Sayak, Kleinert Manuel, Klinger Julia, Kolb Jan-Philipp, Kołczyńska Marta, Kuk John, Kunißen Katharina, Kurti Sinatra Dafina, Langenkamp Alexander, Lee Robin C, Lersch Philipp M, Liu David, Löbel Lea-Maria, Lutscher Philipp, Mader Matthias, Madia Joan E, Malancu Natalia, Maldonado Luis, Marahrens Helge, Martin Nicole, Martinez Paul, Mayerl Jochen, Mayorga Oscar J, McDonnell Robert, McManus Patricia, McWagner Kyle, Meeusen Cecil, Meierrieks Daniel, Mellon Jonathan, Merhout Friedolin, Merk Samuel, Meyer Daniel, Micheli Leticia, Mijs Jonathan, Moya Cristóbal, Neunhoeffer Marcel, Nüst Daniel, Nygård Olav, Ochsenfeld Fabian, Otte Gunnar, Pechenkina Anna, Pickup Mark, Prosser Christopher, Raes Louis, Ralston Kevin, Ramos Miguel, Reichert Frank, Roets Arne, Rogers Jonathan, Ropers Guido, Samuel Robin, Sand Gregor, Sanhueza Petrarca Constanza, Schachter Ariela, Schaeffer Merlin, Schieferdecker David, Schlueter Elmar, Schmidt Katja, Schmidt Regine, Schmidt-Catran Alexander, Schmiedeberg Claudia, Schneider Jürgen, Schoonvelde Martijn, Schulte-Cloos Julia, Schumann Sandy, Schunck Reinhard, Seuring Julian, Silber Henning, Sleegers Willem, Sonntag Nico, Staudt Alexander, Steiber Nadia, Steiner Nils D, Sternberg Sebastian, Stiers Dieter, Stojmenovska Dragana, Storz Nora, Striessnig Erich, Stroppe Anne-Kathrin, Suchow Jordan W, Teltemann Janna, Tibajev Andrey, Tung Brian, Vagni Giacomo, Van Assche Jasper, van der Linden Meta, van der Noll Jolanda, Van Hootegem Arno, Vogtenhuber Stefan, Voicu Bogdan, Wagemans Fieke, Wehl Nadja, Werner Hannah, Wiernik Brenton M, Winter Fabian, Wolf Christof, Wu Cary, Yamada Yuki, Zakula Björn, Zhang Nan, Ziller Conrad, Zins Stefan, Żółtak Tomasz, Nguyen Hung H V

机构信息

Organization and Program Planning, German Institute for Adult Education-Leibniz Center of Lifelong Learning, Bonn 53175, Germany.

School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.

出版信息

R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Mar 19;12(3):241038. doi: 10.1098/rsos.241038. eCollection 2025 Mar.

DOI:10.1098/rsos.241038
PMID:40109936
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11922520/
Abstract

This study investigates researcher variability in computational reproduction, an activity for which it is least expected. Eighty-five independent teams attempted numerical replication of results from an original study of policy preferences and immigration. Reproduction teams were randomly grouped into a 'transparent group' receiving original study and code or 'opaque group' receiving only a method and results description and no code. The transparent group mostly verified original results (95.7% same sign and -value cutoff), while the opaque group had less success (89.3%). Second-decimal place exact numerical reproductions were less common (76.9 and 48.1%). Qualitative investigation of the workflows revealed many causes of error, including mistakes and procedural variations. When curating mistakes, we still find that only the transparent group was reliably successful. Our findings imply a need for transparency, but also more. Institutional checks and less subjective difficulty for researchers 'doing reproduction' would help, implying a need for better training. We also urge increased awareness of complexity in the research process and in 'push button' replications.

摘要

本研究调查了研究人员在计算再现方面的差异,而这是人们最不期望出现差异的一项活动。八十五个独立团队尝试对一项关于政策偏好与移民的原始研究结果进行数值复制。复制团队被随机分为“透明组”和“不透明组”,前者会收到原始研究及代码,后者仅收到方法和结果描述,没有代码。透明组大多验证了原始结果(95.7%符号相同且p值临界值相同),而不透明组的成功率较低(89.3%)。精确到小数点后第二位的数值再现不太常见(分别为76.9%和48.1%)。对工作流程的定性调查揭示了许多错误原因,包括失误和程序差异。在梳理失误时,我们仍然发现只有透明组取得了可靠的成功。我们的研究结果表明需要透明度,但还不止于此。机构检查以及降低研究人员“进行复制”时的主观难度会有所帮助,这意味着需要更好的培训。我们还敦促提高对研究过程和“一键式”复制中复杂性的认识。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/bc6204d0f25f/rsos.241038.f003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/0f3676d9edf7/rsos.241038.f001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/c61bb0e2c1aa/rsos.241038.f002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/bc6204d0f25f/rsos.241038.f003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/0f3676d9edf7/rsos.241038.f001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/c61bb0e2c1aa/rsos.241038.f002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ab8/11922520/bc6204d0f25f/rsos.241038.f003.jpg

相似文献

1
The reliability of replications: a study in computational reproductions.复制的可靠性:一项关于计算再现的研究。
R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Mar 19;12(3):241038. doi: 10.1098/rsos.241038. eCollection 2025 Mar.
2
Replicability or reproducibility? On the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail.可重复性还是再现性?论计算神经科学中的复制危机以及仅分享相关细节的问题。
J Comput Neurosci. 2018 Dec;45(3):163-172. doi: 10.1007/s10827-018-0702-z. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
No relationship between researcher impact and replication effect: an analysis of five studies with 100 replications.研究者影响力与重复效应之间不存在关联:对五项包含100次重复实验的研究的分析。
PeerJ. 2020 Mar 24;8:e8014. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8014. eCollection 2020.
5
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
6
Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences.有人愿意分享吗?社会科学中代码共享行为的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 7;18(8):e0289380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289380. eCollection 2023.
7
Open science, reproducibility, and transparency in ecology.生态学中的开放科学、可重复性和透明度。
Ecol Appl. 2019 Jan;29(1):e01822. doi: 10.1002/eap.1822. Epub 2018 Nov 30.
8
Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?心理学研究中的复制:它们真的经常发生吗?
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):537-42. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460688.
9
Little evidence that Eurasian jays protect their caches by responding to cues about a conspecific's desire and visual perspective.没有证据表明欧亚松鸦通过对同种个体的欲望和视觉角度的线索做出反应来保护它们的藏食。
Elife. 2021 Sep 10;10:e69647. doi: 10.7554/eLife.69647.
10
Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities.荷兰的重复研究:经验教训及对资助者、出版商与编辑以及大学的建议。
Account Res. 2024 Aug 13:1-19. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349.

本文引用的文献

1
Learning Lessons on Reproducibility and Replicability in Large Scale Genome-Wide Association Studies.从大规模全基因组关联研究中的可重复性和可复制性中吸取经验教训。
Harv Data Sci Rev. 2020 Fall;2(4). doi: 10.1162/99608f92.33703976. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
2
Transparency Is Now the Default at .透明度如今在……成为默认设置。 你提供的原文似乎不完整,“at.”后面缺少具体内容。以上是根据现有内容翻译的结果 。
Psychol Sci. 2024 Jul;35(7):708-711. doi: 10.1177/09567976231221573. Epub 2023 Dec 27.
3
Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences.
有人愿意分享吗?社会科学中代码共享行为的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 7;18(8):e0289380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289380. eCollection 2023.
4
Successes and Struggles with Computational Reproducibility: Lessons from the Fragile Families Challenge.计算可重复性的成功与挑战:来自脆弱家庭挑战的经验教训。
Socius. 2019 Jan-Dec;5. doi: 10.1177/2378023119849803. Epub 2019 Sep 10.
5
rang: Reconstructing reproducible R computational environments.重建可重现的 R 计算环境。
PLoS One. 2023 Jun 8;18(6):e0286761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286761. eCollection 2023.
6
Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty.观察到许多研究人员使用相同的数据和假设,揭示了一个隐藏的不确定宇宙。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov;119(44):e2203150119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2203150119. Epub 2022 Oct 28.
7
A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms.一份由社区提供的开放学术术语词汇表。
Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Mar;6(3):312-318. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01269-4.
8
A large-scale study on research code quality and execution.一项关于研究代码质量和执行情况的大规模研究。
Sci Data. 2022 Feb 21;9(1):60. doi: 10.1038/s41597-022-01143-6.
9
Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines.数据共享实践和根据请求提供数据的可用性因科学学科而异。
Sci Data. 2021 Jul 27;8(1):192. doi: 10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0.
10
Time to get personal? The impact of researchers choices on the selection of treatment targets using the experience sampling methodology.是时候关注个体情况了?研究人员的选择对使用经验取样法选择治疗靶点的影响。
J Psychosom Res. 2020 Aug 5;137:110211. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110211.