On: 'Generous’ approach to replication confirms many social science findings

[jblow]

Except no, because rhetorically they are using the 62% figure as a good sign, rather than a bound on how bad things are.

[gweinberg → jblow]

I'd say it's a good article with a bad title. my take away is that even with their generous approach only 62% of studies replicate. That means 1) probably over 1/3 of results are completely bogus and 2) of the ones that were real, about half the effects were substantially weaker than claimed.

[SiempreViernes → gweinberg]

This article is Science telling us that "look, over half of the high impact science we publish is actually real! Our peer review works!".