The trainwreck of “reproducible science”,

You do realise that is satire, written by a "researcher" (quotes as used by you, not sure why they are necessary)?

It's posted on OSF, which is a non-profit run by "scientists" and "researchers" at the forefront of promoting openness, transparency and reproducibility in science.

https://www.cos.io/rpcb
Read it and weep 🙁

Ultimately, 50 replication experiments from 23 of the original papers were completed, generating data about the replicability of a total of 158 effects. There are many ways to evaluate and characterize replication outcomes, some simplified summaries of the findings include:

Replication effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings

46% of effects replicated successfully on more criteria than they failed

Original positive results were half as likely to replicate successfully (40%) than original null results (80%)

tell me about it, I was an author on this:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716

You do realise that is satire, written by a “researcher” (quotes as used by you, not sure why they are necessary)?

As someone currently trying to complete revisions for a paper that several saff who've now moved on from I feel this pain.....

Happy to discuss the reproducibility crisis in science, as I'm heavily involved in it, as can be seen from my co-authorship of that Science paper linked above. I also share an office with the chair of UKRN ( https://www.ukrn.org/).

It's interesting stuff, and if you've got any questions about what it is, and what scientists are trying to do to fix it (e.g. the person who wrote the article you linked to...), I'd be happy to answer them. "Reproducible science" isn't a "trainwreck", it's what all science should be, but much science isn't for a lot of reasons. The tone of your original post suggested you don't really know much about the context of your linked article.

I'd prefer not to use the medium of gifs to have this discussion, but whatever you like.

I’d prefer not to use the medium of gifs to have this discussion, but whatever you like.

😂 fair enough!

The tone of your original post suggested you don’t really know much about the context of your linked article.

My contribution to advancing humanities scientific endeavors was probably only replacing the Olympic plates used with a model of an animal away from an ignobel prize.

We developed self waxing ski's which meant dragging them along lots of bits of artificial slope with load cells. Less standing on the shoulders of giants, more splashing around in a puddle made by their footprints.