How can I keep track of the reliability of results?

As the replication crisis casts doubt on the reliability of research findings, and replications become more common, we might need to reevaluate our confidence in published results more often -- in either direction. How can we keep up-to-date?

Summarizing replication efforts

  • Curate science collects replications and registered reports and matches them to the original articles. The service aggregates and visualizes effect sizes of the original study and its replications, and computes a meta-analytic average.
  • PsychFileDrawer archives attempted replications of specific studies and whether the replication was achieved, making it easier to estimate the robustness of an effect or finding resources for meta-analyses.

Collecting errata and retractions

  • Open Retractions tracks the status of every article indexed on PubMed and CrossRef: Whether it was retracted, and whether errata are available. The retractcheck package for R automates this process.
  • The blog Retraction Watch maintains an ongoing collection and commentary on retracted papers, with a (non-exclusive) focus on biomedical research.