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; 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

doi:10.1126/science.aad9163

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

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 journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

126 Citations (Scopus)

302 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	1037
Journal	Science
Volume	251
Issue number	6277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
Publication status	Published - 4 Mar 2016

Access to Document

10.1126/science.aad9163

OSC GilbertResponse ScienceAccepted author manuscript, 344 KB

Cite this

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., ... Zuni, K. (2016). Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 251(6277), 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

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

@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{\textquoteright}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 = mar,

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

SN - 0036-8075

SN - 1095-9203

VL - 251

SP - 1037

JO - Science

JF - Science

IS - 6277

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this