Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"
Files
Publication date
2016
Authors
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
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
taverne
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 about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.
Keywords
Behavioral Research, Psychology, Publishing, Research, Comment, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Taverne
Citation
Anderson, C J, Bahník, Š, Barnett-Cowan, M, Bosco, F A, Chandler, J, Chartier, C R, Cheung, F, Christopherson, C D, Cordes, A, Cremata, E J, Della Penna, N, Estel, V, Fedor, A, Fitneva, S A, Frank, M C, Grange, J A, Hartshorne, J K, Hasselman, F, Henninger, F, van der Hulst, M, Jonas, K J, Lai, C K, Levitan, C A, Miller, J K, Moore, K S, Meixner, J M, Munafò, M R, Neijenhuijs, K I, Nilsonne, G, Nosek, B A, Plessow, F, Prenoveau, J M, Ricker, A A, Schmidt, K, Spies, J R, Stieger, S, Strohminger, N, Sullivan, G B, van Aert, R C M, van Assen, M A L M, Vanpaemel, W, Vianello, M, Voracek, M & Zuni, K 2016, 'Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"', Science, vol. 351, no. 6277, pp. 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163