Reproducibility crisis and gravitation towards a consensus in ocean acidification research

Reproducibility is a persistent concern in science and recently attracts considerable attention in assessing biological responses to ocean acidification. Here we track the reproducibility of the harmful effects of ocean acidification on calcification of shell-building organisms by conducting a meta-analysis of 373 studies across 24 years. The pioneering studies tended to report large negative effects, but as other researchers assimilated this research into understanding their biological systems, the size of negative effects declined. Such declines represent a scientific process by which discoveries are initially assimilated and their limitations are subsequently explored. We suggest that scientific novelties can polarize a discipline where researchers fail to distinguish between different motivations for testing a phenomenon, that is, its existence (theory proposal) versus its influence within ever-widening contexts (theory development). Where context dependency is high, the lack of reproducibility may not represent a crisis but a part of theory development and eventual gravitation towards a consensus position. To test the reproducibility of ocean acidification research, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of 373 studies on calcification of marine calcifiers across 24 years. While the size of negative effects declined over time, the results remained reproducible and their limitations were then explored.