Short abstract

How to ensure credibility in science? We surveyed 11,050 researchers in Sweden about their views on potential causes of the replication crisis and the extent to which various interventions can increase science’s credibility. We compare results across academic fields and academic seniority.

Long abstract

The credibility of scientific research has come under increased scrutiny over the past decade, fuelled in part by lower-than-expected success rates of various efforts to replicate published findings. We conducted a survey of 11,050 researchers and PhD students in Sweden, who indicated (1) whether they had heard of the replication crisis, (2) to what extent they believed a number factors contributed to the replication crisis, and (3) how successful they believed a number of interventions are or would be in increasing the credibility of scientific findings. Overall, 51% of respondents indicated that they had heard of the replication crisis (30% answered “no” and 19% were unsure). This number varied substantially across fields, with psychology having the highest proportion of researchers indicating they had heard of the replication crisis (90%). Moreover, top-rated causes and solutions related to (1) how researchers are evaluated for employment and promotion based on quantitative publication metrics and (2) publication bias. In contrast, interventions such as lowering the threshold for statistical significance and limiting the number of publications per researcher per year were on average rated as the least successful in terms of their potential to increase credibility. Ratings were relatively stable across academic disciplines and employment categoreis (i.e., seniority), although there was some variation across fields in average ratings of some of the interventions.