Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

Anderson, Christopher; Bahník, Štěpán; Barnett‐Cowan, Michael; A. Bosco, Frank; Chandler, Jesse; R. Chartier, Christopher; Cheung, Felix; D. Christopherson, Cody; Cordes, Andreas; Cremata, Edward; Della Penna, Nicolás; Estel, Vivien; Fedor, Anna; A. Fitneva, Stanka; C. Frank, Michael; A. Grange, James; K. Hartshorne, Joshua; Hasselman, Fred; Henninger, Felix; van der Hulst, Marije; J. Jonas, Kai; K. Lai, Calvin; Levitan, Carmel; K. Miller, Jeremy; Sledge Moore, Katherine; Meixner, Johannes; R. Munafò, Marcus; Ilja Neijenhuijs, Koen; Nilsonne, Gustav; A. Nosek, Brian; Plessow, Franziska; M. Prenoveau, Jason; A. Ricker, Ashley; Schmidt, Kathleen; R. Spies, Jeffrey; Stieger, Stefan; Strohminger, Nina; Brent Sullivan, Gavin; C. M. van Aert, Robbie; A. L. M. van Assen, Marcel; Vanpaemel, Wolf; Vianello, Michelangelo; Voracek, Martin; Zuni, Kellylynn

doi:10.1126/science.aad9163

Public

Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

Published in Science • Mar 3, 2016

Authors:

Christopher Anderson

Štěpán Bahník

Michael Barnett‐Cowan

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...

Subject

Reproducibility

Pessimism

Psychological science

Research Assistant

AI chat, annotations, notes & similar papers

Finding related papers...

Discussions

(0)

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts!