  The explosive growth of scientists, scientific journals, articles and
findings in recent years exponentially increases the difficulty scientists face
in navigating prior knowledge. This challenge is exacerbated by uncertainty
about the reproducibility of published findings. The availability of massive
digital archives, machine reading and extraction tools on the one hand, and
automated high-throughput experiments on the other, allow us to evaluate these
challenges at scale and identify novel opportunities for accelerating
scientific advance. Here we demonstrate a Bayesian calculus that enables the
positive prediction of robust, replicable scientific claims with findings
automatically extracted from published literature on gene interactions. We
matched these findings, filtered by science, with unfiltered gene interactions
measured by the massive LINCS L1000 high-throughput experiment to identify and
counteract sources of bias. Our calculus is built on easily extracted
publication meta-data regarding the position of a scientific claim within the
web of prior knowledge, and its breadth of support across institutions, authors
and communities, revealing that scientifically focused but socially and
institutionally independent research activity is most likely to replicate.
These findings recommend policies that go against the common practice of
channeling biomedical research funding into centralized research consortia and
institutes rather than dispersing it more broadly. Our results demonstrate that
robust scientific findings hinge upon a delicate balance of shared focus and
independence, and that this complex pattern can be computationally exploited to
decode bias and predict the replicability of published findings. These insights
provide guidance for scientists navigating the research literature and for
science funders seeking to improve it.
