The low replication rate of published studies has long concerned the social science community, making understanding the replicability a critical problem. Several studies have shown that relevant research communities can make predictions about the replicability of individual studies with above-chance accuracy. Follow-up work further indicates that laypeople can also achieve above-chance accuracy in predicting replicability when experts interpret the studies into short descriptions that are more accessible for laypeople. The involvement of scarce expert resources may make these methods expensive from financial and time perspectives. In this work, we explored whether laypeople can predict the replicability of social science studies without expert intervention. We presented laypeople with raw materials truncated from published social science papers and elicited their answers to questions related to the paper. Our results suggested that laypeople were engaged in this technical task, providing reasonable and self-contained answers. The majority of them also demonstrated a good understanding of the material. However, the solicited information had limited predictive power on the actual replication outcomes. We further discuss several lessons we learned compared to the approach with expert intervention to inspire future works.
翻译:已经出版的研究报告的复制率较低,这长期以来一直关系到社会科学界,使人们了解这些方法的可复制性是一个关键问题。一些研究表明,有关的研究界可以预测个别研究的可复制性,其准确性高于以往。后续工作还表明,在专家将研究报告解释成对非公众更便于查阅的简短描述时,非专业人士也可以在预测可复制性方面达到高于以往的准确性。由于专家资源稀缺,从财政和时间角度考虑,这些方法可能变得昂贵。在这项工作中,我们探讨了非专业人士能否预测社会科学研究的可复制性而无需专家干预。我们向非专业人士介绍了从已出版的社会科学论文中流失的原材料,并征求了他们对与该文件有关的问题的答案。我们的结果表明,非专业人士也参与了这项技术工作,提供了合理和自成一体的答案。他们中的大多数人也很好地理解了材料。然而,所征求的信息从实际复制结果的预测力有限。我们进一步讨论了与专家干预启发未来工作的方法相比,我们学到的一些经验教训。