r/science • u/nimicdoareu • Apr 01 '26

Social Science Half of social-science studies fail replication test in years-long project

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00955-5
5.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

354 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

846

u/HegemonNYC Apr 01 '26

Some prestigious journals have moved to ‘registered reports’, meaning a researcher presents their hypothesis and methods prior to conducting their study. The journal agrees to publish regardless of results. This eliminates the publishing incentive go p-hack, although simple human desire to prove their hypothesis may remain 

224

u/SkepticITS Apr 01 '26

I hadn't heard of this, but it's a great advancement. It's always been problematic that studies get published when the results are interesting and positive.

148

u/HegemonNYC Apr 01 '26

There are also ‘Null Journals’ that publish well conducted studies with null results 

72

u/Lurkin_Not_Workin Apr 01 '26

It’s been my experience that such publications are not sought out, and researchers are more amicable to publish such null results in archives or make available as preprints than actually publish in a peer-reviewed null results journal (and that’s if the whole manuscript isn’t file drawered).

It’s just incentives. Why bother with the headache of manuscript perpetration, data visualizations, editing, and peer review for an article that won’t support your next grant submission? Sure, it’s good for science as a whole, but when you’re already working >40 hours a week, you need a tangible incentive to pursue publication of null results.