IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0274429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Fraser
  • Martin Bush
  • Bonnie C Wintle
  • Fallon Mody
  • Eden T Smith
  • Anca M Hanea
  • Elliot Gould
  • Victoria Hemming
  • Daniel G Hamilton
  • Libby Rumpff
  • David P Wilkinson
  • Ross Pearson
  • Felix Singleton Thorn
  • Raquel Ashton
  • Aaron Willcox
  • Charles T Gray
  • Andrew Head
  • Melissa Ross
  • Rebecca Groenewegen
  • Alexandru Marcoci
  • Ans Vercammen
  • Timothy H Parker
  • Rink Hoekstra
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
  • David R Mandel
  • Don van Ravenzwaaij
  • Marissa McBride
  • Richard O Sinnott
  • Peter Vesk
  • Mark Burgman
  • Fiona Fidler

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Fraser & Martin Bush & Bonnie C Wintle & Fallon Mody & Eden T Smith & Anca M Hanea & Elliot Gould & Victoria Hemming & Daniel G Hamilton & Libby Rumpff & David P Wilkinson & Ross Pearson & Feli, 2023. "Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0274429
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274429
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274429&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0274429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:osf:socarx:46mnb_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alipourfard, Nazanin & Arendt, Beatrix & Benjamin, Daniel Jacob & Benkler, Noam & Bishop, Michael Metcalf & Burstein, Mark & Bush, Martin & Caverlee, James & Chen, Yiling & Clark, Chae, 2021. "Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE)," SocArXiv 46mnb, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:osf:metaar:ax825_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sai Dileep Koneru & David Rench McCauley & Michael C Smith & David Guarrera & Jenn Robinson & Sarah Rajtmajer, 2023. "The evolution of scientific literature as metastable knowledge states," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2023. "Evaluating meta-analysis as a replication success measure," MetaArXiv ax825, Center for Open Science.
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:x2w9h_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0274429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.