  Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed
upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research
production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive
expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel,
high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about
drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the
NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more
frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more
frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2)
centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to
replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized,
overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized
research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse
methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings
highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized
collaboration to promote robust scientific advance.
