Credible Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences in Nature Collection 2026
June 11, 2026
The results of four studies conducted as part of larger projects for research credibility were recently published in Nature. Researchers from around the world conducted a large-scale analysis of several hundred papers published between 2009 and 2018, examining their replicability, robustness, and reproducibility. OSC members were also involved in the projects. The results continued to reveal large gaps across all three areas of research credibility, underscoring the importance of developing and improving effective and rigorous methods.
Read the Nature Editorial of the four studies here: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00965-3
Main Findings
Tyner et al. (2026) primarily investigated the replicability of a large set of studies and found that only 55% of the examined claims yielded significant results upon reanalysis. In general, the effects were significantly smaller than in the original analyses.
Aczel et al. (2026) conducted a study on analytical robustness, with OSC members Sabine Hoffmann being involved in the conceptualization and formal analysis of the project and Patrick Callahan and Juliane Wilcke as contributors. They found that, after performing alternative analyses using the same data, only 74% of the studies examined reached the same conclusion. Very similar results were found in only 34% of the studies.
Concerning Open Science, only 24% of all papers examined provided complete data and code, as shown by the analysis of Miske et al. (2026). Of all the available datasets, 77% turned out to be reproducible.
In a dataset of political and economic studies examined by Brodeur et al. (2026), the proportion of replicable studies rose from 59% in 2014 to nearly 90% in 2023, as more and more journals introduced mandatory publication of data and code. The former OSC member Taisuke Imai contributed to this study.
Outlook
The findings presented show that significant gaps in research replicability, robustness, and reproducibility persist and that studies and their results must continue to be viewed critically. This makes it all the more important for researchers to engage with methods that promote more reliable research outcomes.
Read the four studies here:
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Clelland, H.T. et al. (2026) Investigating the analytical robustness of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature 652, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09844-9
Brodeur, A., Mikola, D., Cook, N. et al. (2026). Reproducibility and robustness of economics and political science research. Nature 652, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10251-x
Miske, O., Abatayo, A.L., Daley, M. et al. (2026). Investigating the reproducibility of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature 652, 126–134 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10203-
Tyner, A.H., Abatayo, A.L., Daley, M. et al. (2026). Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature 652, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y