GCRI · Labs
دووبارەکردنەوەپێکراوی و ئەنجامە نەرێنییەکان
Science corrects itself only when failures are recorded: replications that did not reproduce, experiments that found nothing, errors found after publication. Many of these records never appear, so the published literature overstates effects and certainty. This page sets out how irreproducibility arises, how replication and correction work, which records exist, and what editors, integrity offices and funders rely on when they correct or retract.
Reproducibility and negative results on the record.
Reproducibility and negative results: how the risk develops.
Failure records and corrections. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Publication bias filters the record
Significant, novel results are more likely to be written up, accepted and cited than null ones. The literature then shows a biased sample of what was studied, and meta-analyses inherit the bias.
Errors propagate through citation
A flawed or retracted paper keeps being cited, often without mention of its status. Reviews, guidelines and later studies that build on it carry the error forward, sometimes long after the notice.
Reproduction fails for ordinary reasons
Missing code, undocumented software versions, unshared reagents, unclear methods and lost raw data stop others from repeating an analysis or experiment, even when the original work was honest.
Correction is slow and uneven
Investigations take time, journals differ in how they flag problems, and retraction notices can be vague. Readers may not learn that a paper was corrected, and databases may not carry the notice forward.
تەختەی پرۆتۆکۆڵ و دووبارەکردنەوە.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
تەختەی پرۆتۆکۆڵ و دووبارەکردنەوە
Reproducibility and negative results · Labs · Quarter 1
پرۆتۆکۆڵەکان
| PR-594 sensor drift | تاقیکردنەوەی مەیدانی | بەڵێ | پەسەندکراو | کارا |
| PR-714 AI triage | هەڕەمەکی | بەڵێ | مەرجەکان | ڕێکخستن |
| PR-551 message recall | تاقیکردنەوەی ڕاپرسی | بەڵێ | پەسەندکراو | تەواو |
| PR-896 heat exposure | کۆهۆرت | نەخێر | چاوەڕوان | پێشنووس |
Replication R-20
- کاریگەریی ڕەسەن
- 0.3 SD
- کاریگەریی دووبارەکردنەوە
- 0.3 SD
- بڕیار
- بچووکتر، هەمان نیشانە
- بڵاوکراوە
- لەگەڵ داتا و کۆد
بەردەستبوونی شوێنی تاقیکردنەوە
Negative results matter in every domain.
Negative results are published in the زنجیرەی Labs Evidence. The National Academies’ report (2019) distinguishes reproducibility from replicability; DORA (2012) supports assessing research on its merits.
- Negative results.
- Replication attempts.
How reproducibility and negative results is modelled, measured and tested.
مۆدێلەکە، گریمانەکانی، داتاکانی و نادڵنیاییەکەی، بەو شێوەیەی زانا یان ئەندازیارێک دەیپشکنێت. پێکهاتەکان ڕێگا بڵاوکراوەکان دەگرنەبەر. بەهاکانی کێشراو نموونەییە، نەک دۆزینەوە.
مۆدێل، هاوکێشەکان و گریمانەکان
The model structure used for reproducibility and negative results, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)مەترسیدەر، ڕووبەڕووبوون، لاوازی و توانای مامەڵەکردنEAL = ∑k pk · Lkبەسەر ڕووداوەکانی k بە ئەگەری ساڵانەی pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| گریمانە | بۆچی دروست دەکرێت | چۆن تاقی دەکرێتەوە |
|---|---|---|
| مەترسیدەر و ڕووبەڕووبوون لە ناو پێشهاتێکدا سەربەخۆن | ئینتێگراڵی زیان بە ئاسانی دەهێڵێتەوە | بەراورد بکە لەگەڵ گونجاندنی کۆپیولا لەسەر تۆمارە هاوبەشەکان |
| هاوبەستییەکان لە نزیک خاڵی کارکردن هێڵین | ڕێگە دەدات شۆکەکان بڵاو ببنەوە لە A | لە دەرەوەی مەودای هێڵیی شڵەژێنە و بەراورد بکە |
| چەمکەکانی لاوازی لە شوێنێکەوە بۆ شوێنێکی تر دەگوازرێنەوە | چەمکی ناوخۆیی بە دەگمەن بەردەستە | لەگەڵ زیانە چاودێریکراوەکان پشتڕاستی بکەرەوە کە هەن |
- تێکردنەکان
- کۆمەڵە داتای وەشانکراو لەگەڵ ڕەسەنایەتی
- دەرچووەکان
- دابەشبوون، نەک یەک ژمارە
- کۆد
- بڵاوکراوەتەوە لەگەڵ کارتی مۆدێل و تاقیکردنەوەکان
- بەرهەمهێنانەوە
- هەمان داتا، کۆد، ژینگە و تۆو
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | ناونیشان |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computational reproducibility | percent of sampled studies regenerated from shared code and data | per audit | Reproducibility audits | چاودێریکراو |
| Replication outcome | proportion of replications meeting the prespecified criterion | per programme | Coordinated replication projects | چاودێریکراو |
| Retraction notices | count by field and reason | annual | Retraction Watch database via Crossref | ئامارە بڵاوکراوەکان |
| Time from concern to correction | months | per case | Journal and integrity office records | REPORTED |
| Post-retraction citations | citations per retracted article | annual | Citation data linked to retraction records | چاودێریکراو |
| Null and negative results deposited | count of records | annual | Repositories and registries | REPORTED |
| Data available on request | percent of articles whose data could be obtained | per audit | Data request audits | چاودێریکراو |
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| سەرچاوە | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch database (Crossref) | Retractions, corrections and expressions of concern with reasons | Open, attribution |
| Crossref metadata and Crossmark updates | Links from articles to their corrections and retractions | Open metadata, no restrictions |
| OpenAlex | Works, citations, authors and institutions across disciplines | Open, CC0 |
| FORRT Replication Database | Replication attempts and outcomes, mostly in the social and behavioural sciences | Open, attribution |
| OSF projects of coordinated replication programmes | Protocols, data and code of large-scale replications | Open, licence per project |
| PubPeer | Post-publication comments identifying possible problems in papers | Free access, terms of use |
| Zenodo (CERN) | Citable deposits for null results, data and code | Open, licence per record |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Labs prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| کێ بڕیار دەدات | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Journal editors and publishers | Whether to correct, retract or issue an expression of concern | Evidence of error or misconduct, author response, COPE guidance, reproduction attempts |
| Research integrity offices | Whether an allegation is substantiated and what follows | Raw data, records, code, interviews and an independent analysis |
| Research funders | Whether to fund replications and require data and code sharing | Reproducibility audit results, replication evidence by field, cost of sharing |
| Guideline developers and systematic reviewers | Whether to rely on a study that has been questioned or corrected | Retraction and correction status, replication evidence, risk-of-bias assessment |
Outputs this topic produces
- Replication protocols registered before data collection, with success criteria fixed
- Reproducibility records listing code, data, environment and the outcome of each rerun
- Deposits of null and negative results with full methods
- Correction logs that link each notice to the works affected
What experts ask about reproducibility.
- Can an independent team re-run the analysis from the published data and code?
- Has the finding been replicated with new data, in a new setting or by a different team?
- Which null or negative results exist, and where are they recorded?
- When an error is found, how is it corrected and how are users of the result told?
- Which parts of a workflow, such as software versions or random seeds, could change the answer?
Why results fail to reproduce.
Many published findings in several disciplines have proved difficult to replicate. The causes are well understood: small samples, flexible analysis, selective reporting, undocumented data processing and incentives that favour novel positive findings. In computational work, results can also depend on software versions, hardware, random seeds and data that change after publication.
Negative results are under-reported because they are harder to publish and seem less interesting. This distorts the evidence base: if only successful trials of an intervention are visible, the intervention looks more effective than it is. Systematic reviews and models built on that evidence inherit the bias.
Corrections matter for the same reason. An error in a widely used dataset or model can propagate into many downstream analyses before it is found.
Practices that support reproducibility.
- 01
Open data and code
Sharing the materials needed to re-run an analysis, within privacy and licensing limits. Some data cannot be shared and must be described instead.
- 02
Computational environments
Recording software versions and environments, a practice developed with reproducible modelling. Long-term preservation remains hard.
- 03
Registered reports
Peer review of the protocol before results exist, so publication does not depend on the outcome.
- 04
Correction records
Dated, visible corrections linked to the original result, rather than silent replacement.
A failed replication does not by itself show the original was wrong; differences in setting, sample or method must be examined before conclusions are drawn.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01ئەگەر و ئامارSample size and power planning · Meta-analysis with bias assessmentApplied here
- 02ژماردنی نادڵنیایی و پشتڕاستکردنەوەی مۆدێلMeasurement uncertainty budgets · Sensitivity analysis of simulation modelsApplied here
- 03دەرهێنانی هۆکاری و هەڵسەنگاندنی کاریگەریRandomised pilots and stepped rollouts · Quasi-experimental programme evaluationApplied here
- 04زیرەکی دەستکرد و فێربوونی ماشێنAssisted screening for systematic reviews · Surrogate models to guide experimentsApplied here
Where this page’s references lead.
ئەو لەش و بەڵگەنامانەی ئەم لاپەڕەیەیان لەگەڵ دەخوێنرێتەوە. دۆخ و وەشانەکان دەگۆڕێن؛ هەر بەستەرێک دەچێتە لای لەشی دەرکەر.
پرسیار و وەڵام.
What is the difference between reproducibility and replicability?
Why publish negative results?
Does retraction always mean misconduct?
Can a retracted paper still be cited?
Will Labs publish a study that found nothing?
How do I report an error in a Labs result?
Are corrected results removed?
لەم لاپەڕەیەوە بەڵگە پێشکەش بکە.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- ئیمەیڵدەروازەی GW-GCRIلەم لاپەڕەیەوە بینێرەبەڵگە، ڕاستکردنەوە، بابەت، ڕێگا، پێداچوونەوە، وەرگێڕان یان تێکردنی پڕۆفایل. بە نیشانەی ئەم لاپەڕەیە دەگات، بۆ ئەوەی دەستکاریکەری خاوەنەکەی وەریبگرێت.
- Zenodoتەکیەی کراوەدایبنێ و بیدە بە کۆمەڵگاتۆماری خۆت لە Zenodo بە ORCID iD ی خۆت بڵاو بکەرەوە، پاشان لەوێ بیدە بە کۆمەڵگای Reports. سەرپەرشتیارەکان پێداچوونەوەی بۆ دەکەن؛ DOI هەر هی تۆیە.
- ReportsGCRIهەموو ڕێگاکانی بەشداری ببینەجۆرەکانی بەشداری، هەریەکە چۆن پێداچوونەوەی بۆ دەکرێت، چ ناوبردنێک وەردەگریت، مۆڵەتەکە و ئەوەی هەرگیز وەرناگیرێت.
هەرگیز داتای کەسی، وردەکاریی هەستیاری ژێرخان یان هیچ شتێک مەنێرە کە مافی بڵاوکردنەوەت نییە. بەشدارییەک پێش بەکارهێنان پێداچوونەوەی بۆ دەکرێت؛ ناردنی ماف نابەخشێت بە نووسەرایەتی یان بەڕێوەبردنی ڕاگەیاندن، و پاڵپشتی دارایی هەرگیز دۆزینەوەیەک ناکڕێت.
ڕێگایەک، کۆمەڵە داتایەک یان پرسیارێک بهێنە.
زانیاری و پرسیار ئەمڕۆ کراوەن. پرسیارێک ژمارەی ئاماژەی پێدەدرێت و هەنگاوی دواتر دیاری دەکات؛ داواکاری، پارەدان، تەرخانکردنی کۆمپیوتەر و تۆمارکردن تەنیا کاتێک دەکرێنەوە کە تیم، مەرج و توانای پێداچوونەوەیان هەبێت.
بەڵگەنامە یاساییەکان.
نەخشە، داتا و وێنەکانی ئەم ماڵپەڕە بۆ ناوەڕۆک و زانیاریی گشتی پیشان دراون. ئامۆژگاری، پێشبینی یان ئاگادارکردنەوە نین؛ سنوورەکانی زانیارییەکە لە ڕەتکردنەوەی بەرپرسیارێتی و ئاگاداریی داتادا دەستنیشان کراون.