My question is how do these results compare with studies in the physical sciences.
I'm not sure how Ioannidis's conclusions fit with this study. In other words, is Ioannides speaking only about replication or faulty study design? Both, neither or somewhere in between and is one determined by the other?
Does Ioannidis address the different rates of false conclusions as determined by the type of science?
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716
I'm not sure how Ioannidis's conclusions fit with this study. In other words, is Ioannides speaking only about replication or faulty study design? Both, neither or somewhere in between and is one determined by the other?
Does Ioannidis address the different rates of false conclusions as determined by the type of science?
My bold.CONCLUSION
No single indicator sufficiently describes replication success, and the five indicators examined here are not the only ways to evaluate reproducibility. Nonetheless, collectively these results offer a clear conclusion: A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716