  Reproduction of pre-clinical results has a high failure rate. The fundamental
methodology including replication ("protocol") for hypothesis
testing/validation to a state allowing inference, varies within medical and
plant sciences with little justification. Here, five protocols are
distinguished which deal differently with systematic/random errors and vary
considerably in result veracity. Aim: to compare prevalence of protocols
(defined in text). Medical/plant science articles from 2017/2019 were surveyed:
713 random articles assessed for eligibility for counts: first (with p-values):
1) non-replicated; 2) global; 3) triple-result protocols; second: 4)
replication-error protocol; 5) meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria:
human/plant/fungal studies with categorical groups. Exclusion criteria: phased
clinical trials, pilot studies, cases, reviews, technology, rare subjects,
-omic studies. Abbreviated PICOS question: which protocol was evident for a
main result with categorically distinct group difference(s) ? Electronic
sources: Journal Citation Reports 2017/2019, Google. Triplication prevalence
differed dramatically between sciences (both years p<10-16; cluster-adjusted
chi-squared tests): From 320 studies (80/science/year): in 2017, 53 (66%, 95%
confidence interval (C.I.) 56%:77%) and in 2019, 48 (60%, C.I. 49%:71%) plant
studies had triple-result or triplicated global protocols, compared with, in
both years, 4 (5%, C.I. 0.19%:9.8%) medical studies. Plant sciences had a
higher prevalence of protocols more likely to counter generalised systematic
errors (the most likely cause of false positives) and random error than
non-replicated protocols, without suffering from serious flaws found with
random-Institutes protocols. It is suggested that a triple-result
(organised-reproduction) protocol, with Institute consortia, is likely to solve
most problems connected with the replicability crisis.
