| Abstrakt: |
Using publicly available data from 299 preregistered replications from the social sciences, we found that the language used to describe a study can predict its replicability above and beyond a large set of controls related to the article characteristics, study design and results, author information, and replication effort. To understand why, we analyzed the textual differences between replicable and nonreplicable studies. Our findings suggest that the language in replicable studies is transparent and confident, written in a detailed and complex manner, and generally exhibits markers of truthful communication, possibly demonstrating the researchers' confidence in the study. Nonreplicable studies, however, are vaguely written and have markers of persuasion techniques, such as the use of positivity and clout. Thus, our findings allude to the possibility that authors of nonreplicable studies are more likely to make an effort, through their writing, to persuade readers of their (possibly weaker) results. |
