Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"

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

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review


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
Number of pages2
Issue number6277
Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2016
Externally publishedYes




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

Cite this