» Articles » PMID: 36701303

Predicting Reliability Through Structured Expert Elicitation with the RepliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) Process

Abstract

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies.

Citing Articles

Predicting replicability of COVID-19 social science preprints.

Nat Hum Behav. 2024; 9(2):248-249.

PMID: 39706871 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01962-0.


Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints.

Marcoci A, Wilkinson D, Vercammen A, Wintle B, Abatayo A, Baskin E Nat Hum Behav. 2024; 9(2):287-304.

PMID: 39706868 PMC: 11860236. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01961-1.


Evaluating meta-analysis as a replication success measure.

Muradchanian J, Hoekstra R, Kiers H, van Ravenzwaaij D PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0308495.

PMID: 39661601 PMC: 11633967. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308495.


Can large language models help predict results from a complex behavioural science study?.

Lippert S, Dreber A, Johannesson M, Tierney W, Cyrus-Lai W, Uhlmann E R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(9):240682.

PMID: 39323554 PMC: 11421891. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240682.


The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.

Korbmacher M, Azevedo F, Pennington C, Hartmann H, Pownall M, Schmidt K Commun Psychol. 2024; 1(1):3.

PMID: 39242883 PMC: 11290608. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2.


References
1.
. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

2.
Yang Y, Youyou W, Uzzi B . Estimating the deep replicability of scientific findings using human and artificial intelligence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(20):10762-10768. PMC: 7245108. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1909046117. View

3.
Hanea A, McBride M, Burgman M, Wintle B . The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments. Risk Anal. 2018; 38(9):1781-1794. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12992. View

4.
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I . Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1):85. PMC: 4902984. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. View

5.
Dreber A, Pfeiffer T, Almenberg J, Isaksson S, Wilson B, Chen Y . Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(50):15343-7. PMC: 4687569. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1516179112. View