| Literature DB >> 34665669 |
Brian A Nosek1,2, Tom E Hardwicke3, Hannah Moshontz4, Aurélien Allard5, Katherine S Corker6, Anna Dreber7, Fiona Fidler8, Joe Hilgard9, Melissa Kline Struhl2, Michèle B Nuijten10, Julia M Rohrer11, Felipe Romero12, Anne M Scheel13, Laura D Scherer14, Felix D Schönbrodt15, Simine Vazire16.
Abstract
Replication-an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice-is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.Entities:
Keywords: generalizability; metascience; replication; reproducibility; research methods; robustness; statistical inference; theory; validity
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34665669 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Annu Rev Psychol ISSN: 0066-4308 Impact factor: 24.137