diff options
authorMohammad Akhlaghi <mohammad@akhlaghi.org>2020-05-13 22:47:32 +0100
committerMohammad Akhlaghi <mohammad@akhlaghi.org>2020-05-13 22:47:32 +0100
commit25e1e02c5f86e9321bb5e16c69284ffce5e1e01c (patch)
parent7c49cdd2ed3a78bd89a9e45f68281541b385c586 (diff)
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 @@
+ \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)}