Vampire articles, another type of science that will not die

The scientific literature does not automatically correct itself. Unreliable findings may persist for years without correction or retraction. Following prior definitions of zombie articles that are retracted but continue to be cited affirmatively, we add another category of ‘undead’ articles. We define ‘vampire’ articles by two necessary conditions. The first condition is demonstrated irreproducibility, which we operationalize and define with the help of a novel typology of replication efforts. We propose a rule of thumb how many failed efforts at replication might be required for each type of replication effort before the original finding is deemed irreproducible. The second condition for a putative vampire article is that it is cited affirmatively in public policy the scientific literature, or private communications, after the first condition is met. We discuss rules of thumb for how many such affirmative citations might lead qualified researchers in that subfield to address the article of concern within the scientific literature. We surmise that a substantial number of vampire articles exist as our two cases resemble those criticized in a growing literature addressing problematic science and the reproducibility crisis. Our first case concerns aerial gunning of coyotes and the second case predicts over-fishing. We discuss the damaging effects of vampire articles and why the melodramatic metaphor has heuristic value and utility. We also discuss lessons from the communication sciences about how to remedy misinformation, offering recommendations to researchers, publishers and editors, all of whom share an interest in rigorous inquiry and public trust in science.