Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology.

Replicability is an important feature of scientific research, but aspects of contemporary research culture, such as an emphasis on novelty, can make replicability seem less important than it should be. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology was set up to provide evidence about the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology by repeating selected experiments from high-impact papers. A total of 50 experiments from 23 papers were repeated, generating data about the replicability of a total of 158 effects. Most of the original effects were positive effects (136), with the rest being null effects (22). A majority of the original effect sizes were reported as numerical values (117), with the rest being reported as representative images (41). We employed seven methods to assess replicability, and some of these methods were not suitable for all the effects in our sample. One method compared effect sizes: for positive effects, the median effect size in the replications was 85% smaller than the median effect size in the original experiments, and 92% of replication effect sizes were smaller than the original. The other methods were binary - the replication was either a success or a failure - and five of these methods could be used to assess both positive and null effects when effect sizes were reported as numerical values. For positive effects, 40% of replications (39/97) succeeded according to three or more of these five methods, and for null effects 80% of replications (12/15) were successful on this basis; combining positive and null effects, the success rate was 46% (51/112). A successful replication does not definitively confirm an original finding or its theoretical interpretation. Equally, a failure to replicate does not disconfirm a finding, but it does suggest that additional investigation is needed to establish its reliability.

Errington TM ，Mathur M ，Soderberg CK ，Denis A ，Perfito N ，Iorns E ，Nosek BA ... -  《eLife》

Experiments from unfinished Registered Reports in the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology.

As part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, we published Registered Reports that described how we intended to replicate selected experiments from 29 high-impact preclinical cancer biology papers published between 2010 and 2012. Replication experiments were completed and Replication Studies reporting the results were submitted for 18 papers, of which 17 were accepted and published by eLife with the rejected paper posted as a preprint. Here, we report the status and outcomes obtained for the remaining 11 papers. Four papers initiated experimental work but were stopped without any experimental outcomes. Two papers resulted in incomplete outcomes due to unanticipated challenges when conducting the experiments. For the remaining five papers only some of the experiments were completed with the other experiments incomplete due to mundane technical or unanticipated methodological challenges. The experiments from these papers, along with the other experiments attempted as part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, provides evidence about the challenges of repeating preclinical cancer biology experiments and the replicability of the completed experiments.

Errington TM ，Denis A ，Allison AB ，Araiza R ，Aza-Blanc P ，Bower LR ，Campos J ，Chu H ，Denson S ，Donham C ，Harr K ，Haven B ，Iorns E ，Kwok J ，McDonald E ，Pelech S ，Perfito N ，Pike A ，Sampey D ，Settles M ，Scott DA ，Sharma V ，Tolentino T ，Trinh A ，Tsui R ，Willis B ，Wood J ，Young L ... -  《eLife》

Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology.

We conducted the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology to investigate the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology. The initial aim of the project was to repeat 193 experiments from 53 high-impact papers, using an approach in which the experimental protocols and plans for data analysis had to be peer reviewed and accepted for publication before experimental work could begin. However, the various barriers and challenges we encountered while designing and conducting the experiments meant that we were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers. Here we report these barriers and challenges. First, many original papers failed to report key descriptive and inferential statistics: the data needed to compute effect sizes and conduct power analyses was publicly accessible for just 4 of 193 experiments. Moreover, despite contacting the authors of the original papers, we were unable to obtain these data for 68% of the experiments. Second, none of the 193 experiments were described in sufficient detail in the original paper to enable us to design protocols to repeat the experiments, so we had to seek clarifications from the original authors. While authors were extremely or very helpful for 41% of experiments, they were minimally helpful for 9% of experiments, and not at all helpful (or did not respond to us) for 32% of experiments. Third, once experimental work started, 67% of the peer-reviewed protocols required modifications to complete the research and just 41% of those modifications could be implemented. Cumulatively, these three factors limited the number of experiments that could be repeated. This experience draws attention to a basic and fundamental concern about replication - it is hard to assess whether reported findings are credible.

Errington TM ，Denis A ，Perfito N ，Iorns E ，Nosek BA ... -  《eLife》

Replication of null results: Absence of evidence or evidence of absence?

In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a 'replication success.' Here, we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and 'replication success' can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately quantify the evidence for the absence of an effect and how they can be applied in the replication setting. Using data from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, the Experimental Philosophy Replicability Project, and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology we illustrate that many original and replication studies with 'null results' are in fact inconclusive. We conclude that it is important to also replicate studies with statistically non-significant results, but that they should be designed, analyzed, and interpreted appropriately.

Pawel S ，Heyard R ，Micheloud C ，Held L ... -  《eLife》

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.

Camerer CF ，Dreber A ，Holzmeister F ，Ho TH ，Huber J ，Johannesson M ，Kirchler M ，Nave G ，Nosek BA ，Pfeiffer T ，Altmejd A ，Buttrick N ，Chan T ，Chen Y ，Forsell E ，Gampa A ，Heikensten E ，Hummer L ，Imai T ，Isaksson S ，Manfredi D ，Rose J ，Wagenmakers EJ ，Wu H ... -  《Nature Human Behaviour》