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

C. J. Anderson, S. Bahník, M. Barnett-Cowan, F. A. Bosco, J. Chandler, C. R. Chartier, F. Cheung, C. D. Christopherson, A. Cordes, E. J. Cremata, N. Della Penna, V. Estel, A. Fedor, S. A. Fitneva, M. C. Frank, J. A. Grange, J. K. Hartshorne, F. Hasselman, F. Henninger, M. van der HulstK. J. Jonas, C. K. Lai, C. A. Levitan, J. K. Miller, K. S. Moore, J. M. Meixner, M. R. Munafò, K. I. Neijenhuijs, G. Nilsonne, B. A. Nosek, F. Plessow, J. M. Prenoveau, A. A. Ricker, K. Schmidt, J. R. Spies, S. Stieger, N. Strohminger, Gavin B. Sullivan, R. C. M. van Aert, M. A. L. M. van Assen, W. Vanpaemel, M. Vianello, M. Voracek, K. Zuni

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

    116 Citations (Scopus)
    247 Downloads (Pure)


    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1037
    Issue number6277
    Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2016


    Dive into the research topics of 'Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this