Replicating empirical research in behavioral ecology: how and why it should be done but rarely ever is.
That empirical evidence is replicable is the foundation of science. Ronald Fisher a founding father of biostatistics, recommended that a null hypothesis be rejected more than once because "no isolated experiment, however significant in itself can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon" (Fisher 1974:14). Despite this demand, animal behaviorists and behavioral ecologists seldom replicate studies. This practice is not part of our scientific culture, as it is in chemistry or physics, due to a number of factors, including a general disdain by journal editors and thesis committees for unoriginal work. I outline why and how we should replicate empirical studies, which studies should be given priority, and then elaborate on why we do not engage in this necessary endeavor. I also explain how to employ various statistics to test the replicability of a series of studies and illustrate these using published studies from the literature.
Kelly
Clint D
CD
Department of Biology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. CLINT.KELLY@ANU.EDU.AU
D000818:Animals; D001525:Behavioral Sciences / Q000592:standards*; D004463:Ecology / Q000592:standards*; D036262:Empirical Research; D006801:Humans; D015203:Reproducibility of Results