[pavon]

> More specifically, this paper is focused on the social sciences.

No, it isn't. It looked at a few different fields, and found that the problem was actually worse for general science papers published in Nature/Science, where non-reproducible papers were cited 300 times more often as reproducible ones.

[nebulous1]

I think you might be mistaken. The study of Nature/Science papers was "Evaluating replicability of social science experiments published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015"