52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

This article was originally submitted for publication to the Editor of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS) in 2015. When the submitted manuscript was subsequently posted online (Silberzahn et al., 2015), it received some media attention, and two of the authors were invited to write a brief commentary in Nature advocating for greater crowdsourcing of data analysis by scientists. This commentary, arguing that crowdsourced research "can balance discussions, validate findings and better inform policy" (Silberzahn & Uhlmann, 2015, p. 189), included a new figure that displayed the analytic teams' effectsize estimates and cited the submitted manuscript as the source of the findings, with a link to the preprint. However, the authors forgot to add a citation of the Nature commentary to the final published version of the AMPPS article or to note that the main findings had been previously publicized via the commentary, the online preprint, research presentations at conferences and universities, and media reports by other people. The authors regret the oversight.

Initiated as part of the ongoing deliberation about the nosological structure of DSM, this review aims to evaluate whether the anxiety disorders share features of responding that define them and make them distinct from depressive disorders, and/or that differentiate fear disorders from anxious-misery disorders. The review covers symptom self-report as well as on-line indices of behavioral, physiological, cognitive, and neural responding in the presence of aversive stimuli. The data indicate that the anxiety disorders share self-reported symptoms of anxiety and fear; heightened anxiety and fear responding to cues that signal threat, cues that signal no threat, cues that formerly signaled threat, and contexts associated with threat; elevated stress reactivity to aversive stimuli; attentional biases to threat-relevant stimuli and threat-based appraisals of ambiguous stimuli; and elevated amygdala responses to threat-relevant stimuli. Some differences exist among anxiety disorders, and between anxiety disorders and depressive disorders. However, the differences are not fully consistent with proposed subdivisions of fear disorders vs. anxious misery disorders, and comparative data in large part are lacking. Given the high rates of comorbidity, advances in our understanding of the features of responding that are shared across vs. unique to anxiety and depressive disorders will require dimensional approaches. In summary, the extant data help to define the features of responding that are shared across anxiety disorders, but are insufficient to justify revisions to the DSM nosology at this time. Depression and Anxiety

No abstract

No abstract