When they’re asked to make bets, social scientists have a surprising knack for predicting which of their colleagues’ papers are full of baloney. This is in contrast to the notoriously bad job social scientists have apparently been doing evaluating papers through traditional peer review.
In a series of attempts to test the health of the field, a high proportion of peer-reviewed published findings keep failing to hold up to attempts at replication. One of the most worrisome was a systematic look at 100 psychology studies, in which more than half failed to replicate.
