| Literature DB >> 26941312 |
Christopher J Anderson1, Štěpán Bahník2, Michael Barnett-Cowan3, Frank A Bosco4, Jesse Chandler5, Christopher R Chartier6, Felix Cheung7, Cody D Christopherson8, Andreas Cordes9, Edward J Cremata10, Nicolas Della Penna11, Vivien Estel12, Anna Fedor13, Stanka A Fitneva14, Michael C Frank15, James A Grange16, Joshua K Hartshorne17, Fred Hasselman18, Felix Henninger19, Marije van der Hulst20, Kai J Jonas21, Calvin K Lai22, Carmel A Levitan23, Jeremy K Miller24, Katherine S Moore25, Johannes M Meixner26, Marcus R Munafò27, Koen I Neijenhuijs28, Gustav Nilsonne29, Brian A Nosek30, Franziska Plessow31, Jason M Prenoveau32, Ashley A Ricker33, Kathleen Schmidt34, Jeffrey R Spies35, Stefan Stieger36, Nina Strohminger37, Gavin B Sullivan38, Robbie C M van Aert39, Marcel A L M van Assen40, Wolf Vanpaemel41, Michelangelo Vianello42, Martin Voracek43, Kellylynn Zuni44.
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.Mesh：
Year: 2016 PMID： 26941312 DOI： 10.1126/science.aad9163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Science ISSN： 0036-8075 Impact factor: 47.728