diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'slides-intro.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | slides-intro.tex | 20 |
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} |