Published in
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, 6277(351), p. 1037-1037, 2016
Links
- ORCID
- ORCID
- ORCID
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- ORCID
- [real.mtak.hu]
- [www.researchgate.net] | PDF
- [research-information.bristol.ac.uk] | PDF
- [curve.coventry.ac.uk] | PDF
- [real.mtak.hu] | PDF
- [repository.ubn.ru.nl] | PDF
- [science.sciencemag.org] | PDF
- [research-information.bristol.ac.uk] | PDF
Tools
Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"
,
Štěpán Bahnik,
Cody D. Christopherson,
Andreas Cordes,
Edward J. Cremata,
Nicolas Della Penna,
Vivien Estel,
Stanka A. Fitneva
and other authors.
Full text: Download
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.