Colaço, David and Bickle, John and Walters, Bradley (2022) When should researchers cite study differences in response to a failure to replicate? [Preprint]

Preview

Text CBW Replication Preprint.pdf Download (420kB) | Preview

Abstract

Scientists often respond to failures to replicate by citing differences between the experimental components of an original study and those of its attempted replication. In this paper, we investigate these purported mismatch explanations. We assess a body of failures to replicate in neuroscience studies on spinal cord injury. We argue that a defensible mismatch explanation is one where (1) a mismatch of components is a difference maker for a mismatch of outcomes, and (2) the components are relevantly different in the follow-up study, given the scope of the original study. With this account, we argue that not all differences between studies are meaningful, even if they are difference makers. As our examples show, focusing only on these differences results in disregarding the representativeness of the original experiment’s components and the scope of its outcomes, undercutting other epistemic aims, such as translation, in the process.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Colaço, David Bickle, John Walters, Bradley
Keywords:	replication; translation; model organisms; experiment; neuroscience
Subjects:	Specific Sciences > Biology General Issues > Experimentation Specific Sciences > Neuroscience
Depositing User:	Dr. David Colaço
Date Deposited:	15 Aug 2022 03:39
Last Modified:	15 Aug 2022 03:39
Item ID:	21054
Subjects:	Specific Sciences > Biology General Issues > Experimentation Specific Sciences > Neuroscience
Date:	2022
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/21054

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item