Added slide with citations on reproducibility problems out of astronomy

This helps show the scale of the problem, and that its not only
astronomy papers that are complaining.

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/slides-intro.tex b/slides-intro.tex
index 33fa428..29b2ff3 100644
--- a/slides-intro.tex
+++ b/slides-intro.tex
@@ -211,6 +211,26 @@
   \end{frame}
 
 
+
+  \begin{frame}{This problem isn't just limited to astronomy}
+    \begin{tcolorbox}[title=Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses]
+      \small Ioannidis+2009 evaluated the replication of data analyses in \alert{18 articles} ... in Nature Genetics and reproduced \alert{only 2} in principle.''. DOI:\href{https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.295}{10.1038/ng.295}.
+    \end{tcolorbox}
+    \pause
+
+    \begin{tcolorbox}[title=Is Economics Research Replicable? 60 papers from Thirteen Journals Say ``Usually Not'']
+      \small Chang\&Li2015 were are able to \alert{replicate less than half} of 67 papers in well-regarded journals. Even \emph{with help} from the authors.
+      They ``assert that \alert{economics research is usually not replicable}''. DOI:\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2015.083}{10.17016/FEDS.2015.083}
+    \end{tcolorbox}
+
+    \pause
+    \begin{tcolorbox}[title=An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness
+for computational reproducibility]
+      \small Stodden+2018 studied a random sample of \alert{204} scientific papers in \emph{Science} and were able to obtain \alert{artifacts from 44\%} and \alert{reproduce the findings for 26\%}. DOI:\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708290115}{10.1073/pnas.1708290115}
+    \end{tcolorbox}
+  \end{frame}
+
+
   \begin{frame}{``Reproducibility crisis'' in the sciences? (Baker 2016, Nature 533, 452)}
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{img/reproducibility-crisis.jpg}