The poster might have confused social sciences with psychology?
>Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
>Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[76] A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results.[77] But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.[78]
25% of experiments replicating in-house is crazy low, but explainable due to very different incentives (the researchers need to get the paper out; the Bayer scientists need to have a functioning product)
Didn't realize there was so much variation from field to field. Even inside 'social sciences'.
I'd like to see this across all, including STEM.
Note: I'm using 'social science' colloquially. On HN, seems like Psychology is a 'social science'. Anything dealing with people is deemed a 'social science'. Even though that isn't technically correct, they are separate fields. There is a 'Social Science' field and a 'Psychology' field.
>Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Definitely better than medicine!
>Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[76] A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results.[77] But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.[78]
25% of experiments replicating in-house is crazy low, but explainable due to very different incentives (the researchers need to get the paper out; the Bayer scientists need to have a functioning product)