https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32874648/ -- "they expect replication rates to differ between fields, with the highest replication rate in economics (average survey response 58%), and the lowest in psychology and in education (average survey response of 42% for both fields). "
Replication != validation, replication would be purely for experiments, which usually do not use that much causal language or attributions to theory. I'm talking about validating theory, and specifically neoclassical theory.
But still, that is interesting. Thank you for taking the time. Although you first source is a survey of expectations by authors on replicability over time, not an actual measurement of replicability.
Your second reference says there are historically more replication studies being published now than before (people trying to replicate other studies), not that more studies replicate.
As you might be aware of, the number of scientific publications in general is growing, so I would also expect the subset if replication studies to grow. This is not very surprising or meaningful, but interesting.
The third one is actually about reproducibility, the authors have taken open data sets published together with papers and see if they can produce the figures and final values in the papers from the original data sets. That is an entirely different thing.
Not really, they're claiming a positive, I'm claiming a negative. The burden of proof is on them. The failure of neoclassical economics has also been widely discussed, especially following 2008, so it's a claim about the status quo.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32874648/ -- "they expect replication rates to differ between fields, with the highest replication rate in economics (average survey response 58%), and the lowest in psychology and in education (average survey response of 42% for both fields). "
https://replicationnetwork.com/2021/01/06/reed-the-state-of-... -- "indeed, there has been an increase in the number of replications over time. "
https://www.banque-france.fr/en/publications-and-statistics/... -- "First, we find a moderate replication success, in spite of a data availability policy."
Replication != validation, replication would be purely for experiments, which usually do not use that much causal language or attributions to theory. I'm talking about validating theory, and specifically neoclassical theory.
But still, that is interesting. Thank you for taking the time. Although you first source is a survey of expectations by authors on replicability over time, not an actual measurement of replicability.
Your second reference says there are historically more replication studies being published now than before (people trying to replicate other studies), not that more studies replicate.
As you might be aware of, the number of scientific publications in general is growing, so I would also expect the subset if replication studies to grow. This is not very surprising or meaningful, but interesting.
The third one is actually about reproducibility, the authors have taken open data sets published together with papers and see if they can produce the figures and final values in the papers from the original data sets. That is an entirely different thing.
I mean, I think the onus is on you to prove the opposite.
Not really, they're claiming a positive, I'm claiming a negative. The burden of proof is on them. The failure of neoclassical economics has also been widely discussed, especially following 2008, so it's a claim about the status quo.
But since you asked, here's an accessible overview: https://francescosyloslabini.info/2016/06/01/neoclassical-ec...