In 2015 the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) (Nosek et al 2015) published a highly influential paper which claimed that a large fraction of published results in the psychological sciences were not reproducible. In this article we review this claim from several points of view. We first offer an extended analysis of the methods used in that study. We show that the OSC methodology induces a bias that is able by itself to explain the discrepancy between the OSC estimates of reproducibility and other more optimistic estimates made by similar studies. The article also offers a more general literature review and discussion of reproducibility in experimental science. We argue, for both scientific and ethical reasons, that a considered balance of false positive and false negative rates is preferable to a single-minded concentration on false positive rates alone.

翻译：2015年，开放科学协作组织（OSC）（Nosek等人，2015）发表了一篇极具影响力的论文，声称心理学领域已发表成果中有很大比例无法被重复验证。本文从多个视角审视这一论断。我们首先对该研究所采用的方法进行了扩展分析，指出OSC的方法论本身存在系统性偏差，这一偏差足以解释其可重复性估计值与其他类似研究中更为乐观的估计值之间的差异。本文还针对实验科学中的可重复性问题进行了更广泛的文献综述与讨论。我们基于科学和伦理双重考量提出：在假阳性率与假阴性率之间寻求审慎平衡，远比片面强调假阳性率更为可取。