trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

A significant percentage of published scientific papers suffer from reproducibility failures and errors

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that a significant percentage of published scientific papers suffer from reproducibility failures and errors?

Yes. Multiple studies and reviews document widespread reproducibility challenges, methodological limitations, and replication failures across scientific disciplines.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim is specific and empirical, addressing reproducibility failures in published scientific literature. Papers [1], [4], and [5] directly support this by examining reproducibility crises, replication failures, and methodological flaws across scientific fields. No retrieved papers refute the premise.

Evidence for · 3
Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.
2025
Discusses historical and ongoing crises in scientific fields regarding replicability and problematic methodological practices.
Get citation
D, L. (2025). Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.1038

See more details
More for · 2
The Bayesian audit: evaluating the proportionality of scientific claims to evidence - a case study on social priming and walking speed.
2026
Highlights how replication failures and over-claiming stem from weaknesses in statistical and evidential alignment.
Get citation
T, C. (2026). The Bayesian audit: evaluating the proportionality of scientific claims to evidence - a case study on social priming and walking speed.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1799078

Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.
2026
Examines the reproducibility crisis in research, noting a significant loss of validity and high rates of studies failing replication tests.
Get citation
S, A., N, K., H, H., A, V., & M, H. (2026). Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34640-w

Related receipts
Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7704 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work