From Mante Nieuwland at Retraction Watch:
On April 10th 2018, eLife published the first large-scale direct replication study in the field of cognitive neuroscience, co-authored by 22 colleagues and myself. This publication detailed a replication effort that spanned 9 laboratories and attempted to replicate a high-impact 2005 publication in the prestigious journal Nature Neuroscience from DeLong, Urbach and Kutas (from hereon referred to as DUK05). People often ask why our replication study was not published in Nature Neuroscience, especially in light of its recent public commitments to replication research (here and here). It certainly wasn’t for our lack of trying.
In this post, I offer a behind-the-scenes account of what happened when we tried to replicate DUK05 and submitted our results to Nature Neuroscience, illustrating some of the obstacles faced by researchers who perform and try to publish replication research. These experiences are not unique by any means (for examples, see here and here). I am sharing our experiences openly in the hope that Nature and other publishers can become more transparent about their policies regarding replication research, and I hope that our experiences will serve and support anyone with an interest in replication research.More.
Treat yourself to an extra virtual cappuccino if you guessed that parts of the boffo seminal study could not be replicated. And then…
Sounds like everyone wants replication in principle but no one wants to subject their own papers to the risk. After all, a paper that no one has even tried to replicate exists in a timeless zone of “never disconfirmed” and can go on being buffo and a basis for policy, without being factually correct. Why mess with that?
Keep up to date with Retraction Watch.
See also: Missing data hinder replication in AI studies too?
Scientists should not accept unreplicated results (Yawn.)