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 Hulst & 24 others K. 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/debate

    66 Citations (Scopus)
    138 Downloads (Pure)

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1037
    JournalScience
    Volume251
    Issue number6277
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2016

    Fingerprint

    psychology
    methodology
    project
    science

    Cite this

    Anderson, C. J., Bahník, S., Barnett-Cowan, M., Bosco, F. A., Chandler, J., Chartier, C. R., ... Zuni, K. (2016). Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 251(6277), 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

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

    In: Science, Vol. 251, No. 6277, 04.03.2016, p. 1037.

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

    Anderson, CJ, Bahník, S, Barnett-Cowan, M, Bosco, FA, Chandler, J, Chartier, CR, Cheung, F, Christopherson, CD, Cordes, A, Cremata, EJ, Della Penna, N, Estel, V, Fedor, A, Fitneva, SA, Frank, MC, Grange, JA, Hartshorne, JK, Hasselman, F, Henninger, F, van der Hulst, M, Jonas, KJ, Lai, CK, Levitan, CA, Miller, JK, Moore, KS, Meixner, JM, Munafò, MR, Neijenhuijs, KI, Nilsonne, G, Nosek, BA, Plessow, F, Prenoveau, JM, Ricker, AA, Schmidt, K, Spies, JR, Stieger, S, Strohminger, N, Sullivan, GB, van Aert, RCM, van Assen, MALM, Vanpaemel, W, Vianello, M, Voracek, M & Zuni, K 2016, 'Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”' Science, vol. 251, no. 6277, pp. 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
    Anderson CJ, Bahník S, Barnett-Cowan M, Bosco FA, Chandler J, Chartier CR et al. Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science. 2016 Mar 4;251(6277):1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
    Anderson, C. J. ; Bahník, S. ; Barnett-Cowan, M. ; Bosco, F. A. ; Chandler, J. ; Chartier, C. R. ; Cheung, F. ; Christopherson, C. D. ; Cordes, A. ; Cremata, E. J. ; Della Penna, N. ; Estel, V. ; Fedor, A. ; Fitneva, S. A. ; Frank, M. C. ; Grange, J. A. ; Hartshorne, J. K. ; Hasselman, F. ; Henninger, F. ; van der Hulst, M. ; Jonas, K. J. ; Lai, C. K. ; Levitan, C. A. ; Miller, J. K. ; Moore, K. S. ; Meixner, J. M. ; Munafò, M. R. ; Neijenhuijs, K. I. ; Nilsonne, G. ; Nosek, B. A. ; Plessow, F. ; Prenoveau, J. M. ; Ricker, A. A. ; Schmidt, K. ; Spies, J. R. ; Stieger, S. ; Strohminger, N. ; Sullivan, Gavin B. ; van Aert, R. C. M. ; van Assen, M. A. L. M. ; Vanpaemel, W. ; Vianello, M. ; Voracek, M. ; Zuni, K. / Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. In: Science. 2016 ; Vol. 251, No. 6277. pp. 1037.
    @article{3c9da0c2f3664662ab27095d7be87174,
    title = "Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”",
    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.",
    author = "Anderson, {C. J.} and S. Bahn{\'i}k and M. Barnett-Cowan and Bosco, {F. A.} and J. Chandler and Chartier, {C. R.} and F. Cheung and Christopherson, {C. D.} and A. Cordes and Cremata, {E. J.} and {Della Penna}, N. and V. Estel and A. Fedor and Fitneva, {S. A.} and Frank, {M. C.} and Grange, {J. A.} and Hartshorne, {J. K.} and F. Hasselman and F. Henninger and {van der Hulst}, M. and Jonas, {K. J.} and Lai, {C. K.} and Levitan, {C. A.} and Miller, {J. K.} and Moore, {K. S.} and Meixner, {J. M.} and Munaf{\`o}, {M. R.} and Neijenhuijs, {K. I.} and G. Nilsonne and Nosek, {B. A.} and F. Plessow and Prenoveau, {J. M.} and Ricker, {A. A.} and K. Schmidt and Spies, {J. R.} and S. Stieger and N. Strohminger and Sullivan, {Gavin B.} and {van Aert}, {R. C. M.} and {van Assen}, {M. A. L. M.} and W. Vanpaemel and M. Vianello and M. Voracek and K. Zuni",
    year = "2016",
    month = "3",
    day = "4",
    doi = "10.1126/science.aad9163",
    language = "English",
    volume = "251",
    pages = "1037",
    journal = "Science",
    issn = "0036-8075",
    publisher = "American Association for the Advancement of Science",
    number = "6277",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

    AU - Anderson, C. J.

    AU - Bahník, S.

    AU - Barnett-Cowan, M.

    AU - Bosco, F. A.

    AU - Chandler, J.

    AU - Chartier, C. R.

    AU - Cheung, F.

    AU - Christopherson, C. D.

    AU - Cordes, A.

    AU - Cremata, E. J.

    AU - Della Penna, N.

    AU - Estel, V.

    AU - Fedor, A.

    AU - Fitneva, S. A.

    AU - Frank, M. C.

    AU - Grange, J. A.

    AU - Hartshorne, J. K.

    AU - Hasselman, F.

    AU - Henninger, F.

    AU - van der Hulst, M.

    AU - Jonas, K. J.

    AU - Lai, C. K.

    AU - Levitan, C. A.

    AU - Miller, J. K.

    AU - Moore, K. S.

    AU - Meixner, J. M.

    AU - Munafò, M. R.

    AU - Neijenhuijs, K. I.

    AU - Nilsonne, G.

    AU - Nosek, B. A.

    AU - Plessow, F.

    AU - Prenoveau, J. M.

    AU - Ricker, A. A.

    AU - Schmidt, K.

    AU - Spies, J. R.

    AU - Stieger, S.

    AU - Strohminger, N.

    AU - Sullivan, Gavin B.

    AU - van Aert, R. C. M.

    AU - van Assen, M. A. L. M.

    AU - Vanpaemel, W.

    AU - Vianello, M.

    AU - Voracek, M.

    AU - Zuni, K.

    PY - 2016/3/4

    Y1 - 2016/3/4

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    U2 - 10.1126/science.aad9163

    DO - 10.1126/science.aad9163

    M3 - Comment/debate

    VL - 251

    SP - 1037

    JO - Science

    JF - Science

    SN - 0036-8075

    IS - 6277

    ER -