Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"
Anderson, Christopher J; Bahník, Štěpán; Barnett-Cowan, Michael; Bosco, Frank A; Chandler, Jesse; Chartier, Christopher R; Cheung, Felix; Christopherson, Cody D; Cordes, Andreas; Cremata, Edward J; Della Penna, Nicolas; Estel, Vivien; Fedor, Anna; Fitneva, Stanka A; Frank, Michael C; Grange, James A; Hartshorne, Joshua K; Hasselman, Fred; Henninger, Felix; van der Hulst, Marije; Jonas, Kai J; Lai, Calvin K; Levitan, Carmel A; Miller, Jeremy K; Moore, Katherine S; Meixner, Johannes M; Munafò, Marcus R; Neijenhuijs, Koen I; Nilsonne, Gustav; Nosek, Brian A; Plessow, Franziska; Prenoveau, Jason M; Ricker, Ashley A; Schmidt, Kathleen; Spies, Jeffrey R; Stieger, Stefan; Strohminger, Nina; Sullivan, Gavin B; van Aert, Robbie C M; van Assen, Marcel A L M; Vanpaemel, Wolf; Vianello, Michelangelo; Voracek, Martin; Zuni, Kellylynn
(2016) Science, volume 351, issue 6277, pp.
(Article)
Abstract
Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions
... read more
about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: Behavioral Research, Psychology, Publishing, Research, Comment, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Taverne
ISSN: 0036-8075
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Note: Copyright © 2016, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
(Peer reviewed)
