The role of replication studies in ecology

TLDR

Results often fail to replicate in large-scale projects across disciplines, and similar conditions exist in ecology where no equivalent replication projects have yet been undertaken. The study examines ecologists’ views on replication studies and proposes ways to better integrate replications into ecological research. Obstacles identified include the difficulty of conducting replication studies and challenges in funding and publishing them. Ecologists estimate that 10% of studies are replicated, view replication as important (97%) but not prevalent (91%) and support funding (61%) and publication (62%), yet actual prevalence is much lower than their estimate.

Abstract

Recent large-scale projects in other disciplines have shown that results often fail to replicate when studies are repeated. The conditions contributing to this problem are also present in ecology but there have not been any equivalent replication projects. Here we examine ecologists’ understanding of and opinions about replication studies. When asked what percentage of ecological studies are replicated, the median response given by ecologists is 10%. The majority of ecologists in our sample considered replication studies to be important (97%), not prevalent enough (91%), worth funding even given limited resources (61%), and suitable for publication in all journals (62%). However, there is a disconnect between this enthusiasm and the prevalence of direct replication studies in the literature which, is much lower than our participants’ estimate of 10%. This may be explained by the obstacles our participants identified including the difficulty of conducting replication studies and of funding and publishing them. We conclude by offering suggestions for how replications could be better integrated into ecological research.