Estimating the Replicability of Sports and Exercise Science Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The replicability of sports and exercise research has not been assessed previously despite concerns about scientific practices within the field. AIM: This study aims to provide an initial estimate of the replicability of applied sports and exercise science research published in quartile 1 journals (SCImago journal ranking for 2019 in the Sports Science subject category; www.scimagojr.com ) between 2016 and 2021. METHODS: A formalised selection protocol for this replication project was previously published. Voluntary collaborators were recruited, and studies were allocated in a stratified and randomised manner on the basis of equipment and expertise. Original authors were contacted to provide deidentified raw data, to review preregistrations and to provide methodological clarifications. A multiple inferential strategy was employed to analyse the replication data. The same analysis (i.e. F test or t test) was used to determine whether the replication effect size was statistically significant and in the same direction as the original effect size. Z-tests were used to determine whether the original and replication effect size estimates were compatible or significantly different in magnitude. RESULTS: In total, 25 replication studies were included for analysis. Of the 25, 10 replications used paired t tests, 1 used an independent t test and 14 used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the statistical analyses. In all, 7 (28%) studies demonstrated robust replicability, meeting all three validation criteria: achieving statistical significance (p < 0.05) in the same direction as the original study and showing compatible effect size magnitudes as per the Z test (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was a substantial decrease in the published effect size estimate magnitudes when replicated; therefore, sports and exercise science researchers should consider effect size uncertainty when conducting subsequent power analyses. Additionally, there were many barriers to conducting the replication studies, e.g., original author communication and poor data and reporting transparency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.430 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".