Published in

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, 6277(351), p. 1037-1037, 2016

DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9163

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"

Journal article published in 2016 by M. van der Hulst, Marije van der Hulst, Christopher J. Anderson, T. pan Bahnik, Michael Barnett Cowan, Frank A. Bosco, Christopher R. Chartier, Jesse Chandler, Felix Cheung, Cody D. Christopherson, Andreas Cordes, Edward J. Cremata, Stanka A. Fitneva, Nicolas Della Penna, Michael C. Frank and other authors.
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

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.