failed_experiment.db
← Back to browse

Decision Sciences› Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty› scientometrics and bibliometrics research

Meta-science (replication) — Replicator expertise (h-index) as an explanation for failed replications

Submitted 2026-10-22

Field: Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and UncertaintyType: No effect foundArea: meta-science (replication)Target: Replicator expertise (h-index) as an explanation for failed replicationsStage: full study

Hypothesis

Replications fail because the replicating researchers lack the expertise and diligence to recreate the original conditions, so replicators with higher h-indices should succeed more often.

What failed

Across 100 scientists who attempted to replicate five studies, replication success and investigators' h-indices both varied widely, but there was no relationship between them.

Broken assumption

Failed replications reflect the replicators' lack of skill rather than problems with the original findings.

Why

The abstract does not offer an alternative explanation; it concludes only that low replicator expertise does not account for the failures.

From the published paper: Protzko et al. PeerJ, 2020. ↗CC BY

Research ideas from this failure

Unvetted lead — read the papers

New hypotheses this failure suggests, each with a crucial experiment, a rival explanation of the original result, and the papers it rests on. Written by AI from paper titles and abstracts found on OpenAlex (and Europe PMC, for life and health sciences).

Related failures

Nothing else logged looks close to this one yet.

Links in published research

Where this experiment's genes are known to matter outside its own research area, and the papers behind those links. Sources: Open Targets Platform and Europe PMC.