![\"COS](\"https:\/\/osf.io\/static\/img\/cos-white2.png\")
L’information nous vient des USA, o\u00f9 des chercheurs ont pass\u00e9 en revue une centaine d’\u00e9tudes scientifiques r\u00e9alis\u00e9es et sont arriv\u00e9es \u00e0 des conclusions surprenantes: 40% des cas \u00e9tudi\u00e9s en psychologie livre les m\u00eames r\u00e9sultats que les recherches originales, pourtant les 270 scientifiques qui se sont lanc\u00e9 dans cette contre-recherche ont utilis\u00e9 des protocoles identiques, des \u00e9chantillons similaires.<\/p>\n
Source:<\/p>\n
Open Science Collaboration<\/strong><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong> Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects (Mr = .197, SD = .257) were half the magnitude of original effects (Mr = .403, SD = .188), representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (p < .05). Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and, if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.<\/p>\n