Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones

We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more interesting, they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.

Automated summary

Research shows that papers that fail to replicate in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals are cited more than those that replicate, even after the failure is published. Only 12% of post-replication citations of non-replicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Experts are able to predict which papers will be replicated, raising the question of why non-replicable papers are accepted for publication in the first place. One possible explanation is that review teams face a trade-off and lower standards regarding reproducibility when the results are more interesting.