Returning to high school chemistry, I remember waiting with my bench partner to form the crystals on our rod blue solution in a cup. Other groups around us jumped with joy when their crystals were formed, but my group just waited. When the bell rang, everyone left, only me. My teacher crossed, picked up an un opening bag on the counter and told me, “Crystals can’t grow if salt is not in the solution.”
It was clear and specific to me. And if that doesn’t happen, you did something wrong.
If only it was that simple.
It took me for many years to realize that science is not just a series of activities where you know what will happen at the end. Instead, science is the discovery and generation of new knowledge.
Now I am a psychologist studying how scientists do science. How are new methods and tools used? How does changes occur in scientific spheres and what interferes with changing our science?
One practice that fascinates me for many years is a replication research where the research group is trying to rebuild the previous study. As with crystals, getting the same result from different teams is not always there, and when you are in a team that does not grow, you do not know if the study did not work because the theory is wrong or forgot to forget to put the salt in a solution.
The crisis of replication
2025 May The executive order of President Donald Trump emphasized the scientific “restorative crisis”. Although repeatability and restoration may look similar, they are different.
Restoration is the ability to use the same data and methods from the study and restore the result. In the editorial role, I am calculating the restoration of the Psychological Science magazine when we take the data provided and check that all the results of this work can be restored independently.
However, we are no longer working on research or new data. Although restoration is important, incorrect, false and sometimes harmful research can still be restored.
On the contrary, the replication is when the independent team repeats the same process, including the collection of new data to find out if they get the same results. When the research echoes, the team may be more confident that the results are not false or a mistake.
The “replication crisis”, which was developed in psychology in the early 2010, spread in many areas, including biology, economics, medicine and informatics. Inability to replicate high levels of studies are associated with many scientists in these fields.
Why replicate?
Replicability is the main scientific value: researchers want to find the same result again and again. Many important conclusions are not published until they are repeated independently.
Random conclusions may occur during research. Imagine if one person turned a coin over 10 times and got two heads, then told the world that “coins have a 20% chance of inventing their heads.” Although this is an unlikely result – about 4% – it is possible.
Replications can correct these random results, as well as scientific mistakes to ensure that science corrects.
For example, in search of the Higgs Boson, two CERN Research Centers, the European Council of Europe, the Atlas and CMS, replicated the detection of particle on a large unique mass, which resulted in 2013. The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded.
Initial measurements from two centers actually estimated the particle mass slightly differently. Thus, while the two centers did not find the same results, the teams appreciated them and found that they were close enough. This variability is a natural part of the scientific process. Just because the results are not identical, it does not mean that they are not reliable.
Such research centers, such as CERN, have their own process, but this is not possible for all research. For projects that are relatively cheap, the original team often echoes their work before announcing, but does not guarantee that an independent team can get the same results.
When projects are expensive, urgent or specific time, independently replicate them before spreading results is often impossible. Remember when people across the country were waiting for the Covid-19 vaccine?
The initial vaccine of the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 took 13 months from the start of the study to the permission of the Food and Drug Administration. The results of the initial study were so clear and convincing that the replication would be unnecessarily delayed to vaccinate in society and slow down the spread of the disease.
Since not every investigation can be repeated before publishing, it is important to do replications after the research is published. Replications help scientists understand how well research processes work, to identify mistakes and to correct independently. So what is the process of replication?
The process of replication
Researchers were able to repeat the work of other teams such as CERN. And that happens. But when there are only two studies – the original and the replication – it is difficult to know what to do when they disagree. As a result, large multifunctional groups often do replications where they all replicate the same study.
Alternatively, if the aim is to evaluate the repetition of research, such as cancer biology, each team can reproduce a different study, and focuses on the percentage of research, which echoes many research.
These large -scale replication projects have emerged worldwide and include many fibers, multiple items, psychological accelerator and others.
The replicators begin to know as much as possible about how the initial investigation was conducted. They can collect detailed information about the study from the published document, discuss the work with its original authors and consult the Internet material.
The replicators want to know how the participants were recruited, how data were collected and what tools were collected and how the data were analyzed.
However, sometimes research can leave important details, such as questions that were asked to participants, or the equipment brand used. The replicators must make these difficult decisions themselves, which can affect the result.
Replicators also often change the details of the study. For example, many replication studies are performed with larger samples – more participants – than the initial examination to ensure that the results are reliable.
Registration and publication
Unfortunately, replication research is difficult to publish: only 3% of psychology documents, less than 1% education and 1.2% marketing are replication.
If the original studios repeat, magazines may reject paper because there is no “new insights”. If it does not repeat, magazines can reject paper because they think the replicators made the mistake of remembering salt crystals.
Because of these issues, replicators often use registration to strengthen their claims. Pre -registration is a public document describing the study plan. It is marked before the investigation.
This type of document improves transparency by changing the plan that can be detected by reviewers. The registered reports take this step further when the research plan may be reviewed by mutual review before the investigation.
If the magazine confirms the registration, they undertake to publish the results of the study, regardless of the results. Registered reports are ideal for replication research because reviewers do not know the results when the magazine undertakes to publish a document and whether the reproduction of the investigation will not affect whether it will be published.
About 58% of registered psychology reports are replication research.
Replication research often uses the highest standards of research practice: large samples and registration. Although not all replication research is needed to use this practice, those who contribute greatly to our confidence in scientific results.
Replication research is a useful thermometer to understand whether the scientific processes are working as intended. Active discussion about the replication crisis in both scientific and political spaces shows that many researchers show that growth is possible. Although no field would expect the replication level to be 100%, new scientists’ processes seek to improve the past.
This article has been published from a conversation, non -profit, independent news organizations that provide you with facts and reliable analysis to help you give meaning to our complex world. It was written by: Amanda Kay Montoya, California University, Los Angeles
Read more:
Amanda Kay Montoya is an associate professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She works on the Board of Directors of the Open Science Center. It receives funding from the US National Science Foundation.