In a new research paper, psychologists have claimed that psychological research may not have replication crisis at all. In scientific process, replication or repeating experiments for the validation of actual study results is a significant factor. Efforts to boost the reproducibility of science play a very important part in the correct knowledge flow.

Published on August 28 last year in the journal Science, Open Science Collaboration (OSC) paper left the psychology community in shock, after it concluded that reproducibility of psychological research was surprisingly low.

A team of analysts reviewed the original story, which said that the researchers headed by Brian Nosek, re-conducted 100 experimental and co-relational studies appeared in three psychology journals. The authors said that during their replication experiments, they used high-powered designs and original materials. The results showed that just 39 out of the 100 replication efforts got successful.

The researchers noted that there wasn’t any factor that sufficiently showed replication success and the investigated five indicators weren’t the only means of determining reproducibility.

At the end, the final result was clear that most of the replications produced weak proof of the actual results even in case the investigators had used the materials suggested by the original researchers, carried out advanced reviews and used advanced statistical prowess.

Seven months after the release of the study, a team of psychologists came up with their own paper, discussing the attention-grabbing research. They mentioned three points in their paper, condemning the OSC study conclusions.

At first, the team talked about the issue of error. According to them, there were numerous errors present in replicating studies. Secondly, Daniel Gilbert and colleagues pointed out the power needed to conduct the experiments.

Thereafter, before its replication efforts, the OSC came in contact with the actual authors and urged them if they would endorse using the original methods again for the replication studies. Just 69% gave their endorsement.

After considering all the points, the authors wrote, “As a result, OSC seriously underestimated the reproducibility of psychological science”.