Do papers that fail to replicate receive more citations?
Core argument: Papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate receive more citations than those that do replicate, according to a study in Science Advances.
A study in Science Advances reveals that papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate receive more citations than those that do replicate. This trend persists even after the publication of replication failures, with only 12% of subsequent citations acknowledging these failures. The quality of citations for nonreplicable papers is comparable to replicable ones, as measured by the impact factor of citing journals. Experts can predict which papers will replicate, yet nonreplicable papers are often published due to a trade-off between the perceived interest of results and reproducibility standards. This suggests a systemic issue in academic publishing where the allure of novel findings outweighs the importance of scientific rigor, potentially skewing economic and policy decisions based on unreliable data.




