The State of Play of Reproducibility in Statistics: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract

Reproducibility, the ability to reproduce the results of published papers or studies using their computer code and data, is a cornerstone of reliable scientific methodology. Studies where results cannot be reproduced by the scientific community should be treated with caution. Over the past decade, the importance of reproducible research has been frequently stressed in a wide range of scientific journals such as Nature and Science and international magazines such as The Economist. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that scientific results are often not reproducible across research areas such as psychology and medicine. Statistics, the science concerned with developing and studying methods for collecting, analyzing, interpreting and presenting empirical data, prides itself on its openness when it comes to sharing both computer code and data. In this article, we examine reproducibility in the field of statistics by attempting to reproduce the results in 93 published papers in prominent journals using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data during the 2010–2021 period. Overall, from both the computer code and the data perspective, among all the 93 examined papers, we could only reproduce the results in 14 (15.1%) papers, that is, the papers provide both executable computer code (or software) with the real fMRI data, and our results matched the results in the paper. Finally, we conclude with some author-specific and journal-specific recommendations to improve the research reproducibility in statistics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.