&gt; An analysis of 98 psychology papers, published in 2015 by 90 teams of researchers co-ordinated by Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia, managed to replicate satisfactorily the results of only 39% of the studies investigated.<p>The Economist is overstating the results a bit. From the coverage at the time:<p><i>Strictly on the basis of significance — a statistical measure of how likely it is that a result did not occur by chance — 35 of the studies held up, and 62 did not. (Three were excluded because their significance was not clear.) The overall “effect size,” a measure of the strength of a finding, dropped by about half across all of the studies. Yet very few of the redone studies contradicted the original ones; their results were simply weaker.</i><p>More here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10132993" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10132993</a>