Abstract:Collaborative efforts to directly replicate empirical studies in the medical and social sciences have revealed alarmingly low rates of replicability, a phenomenon dubbed the 'replication crisis'. Poor replicability has spurred cultural changes targeted at improving reliability in these disciplines. Given the absence of equivalent replication projects in ecology and evolutionary biology, two inter-related indicators offer the opportunity to retrospectively assess replicability: publication bias and statistical power. This registered report assesses the prevalence and severity of small-study (i.e., smaller studies reporting larger effect sizes) and decline effects (i.e., effect sizes decreasing over time) across ecology and evolutionary biology using 87 meta-analyses comprising 4,250 primary studies and 17,638 effect sizes. Further, we estimate how publication bias might distort the estimation of effect sizes, statistical power, and errors in magnitude (Type M or exaggeration ratio) and sign (Type S). We show strong evidence for the pervasiveness of both small-study and decline effects in ecology and evolution. There was widespread prevalence of publication bias that resulted in meta-analytic means being over-estimated by (at least) 0.12 standard deviations. The prevalence of publication bias distorted confidence in meta-analytic results, with 66% of initially statistically significant meta-analytic means becoming non-significant after correcting for publication bias. Ecological and evolutionary studies consistently had low statistical power (15%) with a 4-fold exaggeration of effects on average (Type M error rates = 4.4). Notably, publication bias reduced power from 23% to 15% and increased type M error rates from 2.7 to 4.4 because it creates a non-random sample of effect size evidence. The sign errors of effect sizes (Type S error) increased from 5% to 8% because of publication bias. Our research provides clear evidence that many published ecological and evolutionary findings are inflated. Our results highlight the importance of designing high-power empirical studies (e.g., via collaborative team science), promoting and encouraging replication studies, testing and correcting for publication bias in meta-analyses, and adopting open and transparent research practices, such as (pre)registration, data- and code-sharing, and transparent reporting.

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

Is neuroscience facing up to statistical power?

Enhancing Statistical Power While Maintaining Small Sample Sizes in Behavioral Neuroscience Experiments Evaluating Success Rates

Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

The power and pitfalls of underpowered studies

Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research

Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size

An illustration of reproducibility in neuroscience research in the absence of selective reporting

Finding the right power balance: Better study design and collaboration can reduce dependence on statistical power

Small effect size leads to reproducibility failure in resting-state fMRI studies

Small sample sizes reduce the replicability of task-based fMRI studies

Addressing the “Replication Crisis”: Using Original Studies to Design Replication Studies with Appropriate Statistical Power

Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial

Power Analysis, Sample Size, and Assessment of Statistical Assumptions—Improving the Evidential Value of Lighting Research

Quality over quantity: powering neuroimaging samples in psychiatry

When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment

Reproducibility in the Absence of Selective Reporting: an Illustration from Large-Scale Brain Asymmetry Research

Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology

Causality in Statistical Power: Isomorphic Properties of Measurement, Research Design, Effect Size, and Sample Size

A simple statistical framework for small sample studies

Tutorial: Small-N Power Analysis