Finance suffers from a replication crisis and it is well known that once a market anomaly has been described in the academic literature it tends to disappear in financial markets. But what if factor performance never disappeared? What if it is just hiding behind a corner? That at least is what a
Replication...The entire scientific world is a bit fishy there (you gotta love them psychologists...):
'A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature.[5][90]
In 2010, Fanelli (2010)[91] found that 𝟗𝟏.𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐲/𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases.'
Replication...The entire scientific world is a bit fishy there (you gotta love them psychologists...):
'A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature.[5][90]
In 2010, Fanelli (2010)[91] found that 𝟗𝟏.𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐲/𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Economics seems to lag a bit when it comes to researching itself but studies hint at about 30% of studies that are 'wanting'.
Which still makes economists perform 2 x better than climate scientists. Bring on the energy 'transition'!