research is improving depends on whom you ask

For more than a decade, psychology has been contending with some of its research findings going up in smoke. Widely publicized attempts to replicate major findings have shown that study results that scientists and the public took for granted might be no more than a statistical fluke. We should, for example, be primed for skepticism when studying priming. Power posing may be powerless.


More> https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicuri...om-you-ask

For more than a decade, psychology has been contending with some of its research findings going up in smoke. Widely publicized attempts to replicate major findings have shown that study results that scientists and the public took for granted might be no more than a statistical fluke. We should, for example, be primed for skepticism when studying priming. Power posing may be powerless.


More> https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicuri...om-you-ask

There's a nice irony in there, in that the people who set out to analyse previous workers' statistics for signals that something might be wrong, got their own statistical analysis wrong.