> A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[38] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
That makes perfect sense. The published studies are a sample of 'study-space' and that have outlier significance. Replicate published studies and their significance likely returns to the norm.
Journals are filters to cherry-pick 'study space'. By the way they're constituted, they publish new studies that have overstated significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_...
> A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[38] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.