GCRI · Labs
再現性とネガティブな結果
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.
プロトコルと追試のボード。
このテーマを追跡するためにチームが使う画面：その指標、状態、決定。名前は例であり、値はイメージです。
プロトコルと追試のボード
Reproducibility and negative results · Labs · Quarter 1
プロトコル
| PR-594 sensor drift | フィールド実験 | はい | 承認済み | 実行中 |
| PR-714 AI triage | ランダム化 | はい | 条件 | セットアップ |
| PR-551 message recall | サーベイ実験 | はい | 承認済み | 完了 |
| PR-896 heat exposure | コホート | いいえ | 保留中 | 草案 |
Replication R-20
- 元の効果
- 0.3 SD
- 再現の効果
- 0.3 SD
- 判定
- 小さく、同じ符号
- 公開済み
- データとコード付き
テストベッドの空き状況
Negative results matter in every domain.
Negative results are published in the Labs Evidence series. 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.
モデル、その仮定、データ、不確実性を、科学者やエンジニアが確認する形で示します。構造は公表された手法に従っています。描かれた値は例示であり、知見ではありません。
モデル、方程式、仮定
The model structure used for reproducibility and negative results, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)ハザード、エクスポージャー、脆弱性、対処能力EAL = ∑k pk · Lk年間確率 pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| 仮定 | 作られる理由 | 検証の方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 一つの事象の中では、ハザードとエクスポージャーは独立している | 損失の積分を扱いやすく保つ | 同時記録に当てはめたコピュラと比較 |
| 結合は動作点の近くで線形である | ショックを A を通じて伝播させる | 線形範囲を超えて摂動を与えて比較する |
| 脆弱性曲線は場所を越えて適用できる | 地域固有の曲線はめったに得られない | 観測された損失がある場合はそれに照らして検証 |
- 入力
- 来歴付きのバージョン管理されたデータセット
- 成果物
- 分布であり、単一の数値ではない
- コード
- モデルカードと試験とともに公開
- 再現
- 同じデータ、コード、環境、シード
何を、どの程度うまく測定しているか。
各指標には、その単位、更新頻度、背後にある出典の種類、値が持つことになるエビデンスのラベルが付いています。値は表示しません：プログラムが自らの権限のもとで値を提供します。
| 指標 | 単位 | 周期 | 出典の種類 | ラベル |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computational reproducibility | percent of sampled studies regenerated from shared code and data | per audit | Reproducibility audits | 観測 |
| Replication outcome | proportion of replications meeting the prespecified criterion | per programme | Coordinated replication projects | 観測 |
| Retraction notices | count by field and reason | 年次 | Retraction Watch database via Crossref | 公表統計 |
| Time from concern to correction | か月 | per case | Journal and integrity office records | 報告値 |
| Post-retraction citations | citations per retracted article | 年次 | Citation data linked to retraction records | 観測 |
| Null and negative results deposited | count of records | 年次 | Repositories and registries | 報告値 |
| Data available on request | percent of articles whose data could be obtained | per audit | Data request audits | 観測 |
エビデンスの出所。
名前の明示された公開データセットと機関の記録。それぞれにライセンス区分があります。合意に基づく出典は、その条件のもとでのみ使用し、再公開することはありません。
| 出典 | 提供するもの | ライセンス区分 |
|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch database (Crossref) | Retractions, corrections and expressions of concern with reasons | オープン、帰属表示 |
| 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 | オープン、CC0 |
| FORRT Replication Database | Replication attempts and outcomes, mostly in the social and behavioural sciences | オープン、帰属表示 |
| 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 |
誰が決め、エビデンスが何に役立つか。
ラボ prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| 誰が決定するか | 質問 | このページが提供するエビデンス |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 研究資金提供者 | 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 |
このトピックが生み出す成果物
- 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 再現可能なモデリング. 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.
どのように研究され、手法が言えないことは何か。
Where this page’s references lead.
このページの読解の基準となる機関と文書。状態と版は変わります。各リンクは発行機関へ移動します。
質問と回答。
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?
このページからエビデンスを提供する。
報告書 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.
- メールゲートウェイ GW-GCRIこのページから送信するエビデンス、訂正、事例、手法、レビュー、翻訳、プロファイルへの入力。このページのタグが付いて届くため、担当の編集者が受け取ります。
- Zenodoオープンな寄託寄託してコミュニティに提出するORCID iD を使って Zenodo に自分の記録を公開し、そこから Reports コミュニティに提出してください。キュレーターが審査し、DOI は引き続きあなたのものです。
- 報告書GCRI貢献のすべての方法を見る貢献の種類、それぞれの審査方法、受け取るクレジット、ライセンス、決して受け付けないもの。
個人データ、重要インフラの機微な詳細、共有する権利のないものは決して送らないでください。寄稿は利用前にレビューされます。送付によって著作者としての権利や編集上の権利が生じることはなく、スポンサーシップで調査結果を買うことは決してできません。
手法、データセット、または問いを持ち込んでください。
情報提供と問い合わせは本日から受け付けています。問い合わせには参照番号が付き、次の手順が示されます。申請、支払い、計算資源の割り当て、登録は、担当チーム、規約、審査体制が整ってから開始します。
法的文書。
このサイトの地図、データ、図表は、背景と一般的な情報として示すものです。助言、予報、警報ではありません。情報の限界は免責事項とデータに関する注意事項に記載しています。