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 Hulst; Kai 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

doi:10.1126/science.aad9163

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 Hulst

Kai 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 journal › Editorial › Academic › peer-review

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
Number of pages	2
Journal	Science
Volume	351
Issue number	6277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
Publication status	Published - 4 Mar 2016
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

REPLICATION

Access to Document

10.1126/science.aad9163

https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/342042/response.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yLicence: Other

Cite this

Anderson, C. J., Bahnik, 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, 351(6277), 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

@article{0f7a04819c6e45cab8d65826f4c03802,

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.",

keywords = "REPLICATION",

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

year = "2016",

month = mar,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1126/science.aad9163",

language = "English",

volume = "351",

pages = "1037",

journal = "Science",

issn = "0036-8075",

publisher = "American Association for the Advancement of Science",

number = "6277",

}

Anderson, CJ, Bahnik, 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, Munafo, 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. 351, no. 6277, pp. 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

TY - JOUR

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

AU - Anderson, Christopher J.

AU - Bahnik, Stepan

AU - Barnett-Cowan, Michael

AU - Bosco, Frank A.

AU - Chandler, Jesse

AU - Chartier, Christopher R.

AU - Cheung, Felix

AU - Christopherson, Cody D.

AU - Cordes, Andreas

AU - Cremata, Edward J.

AU - Della Penna, Nicolas

AU - Estel, Vivien

AU - Fedor, Anna

AU - Fitneva, Stanka A.

AU - Frank, Michael C.

AU - Grange, James A.

AU - Hartshorne, Joshua K.

AU - Hasselman, Fred

AU - Henninger, Felix

AU - van der Hulst, Marije

AU - Jonas, Kai J.

AU - Lai, Calvin K.

AU - Levitan, Carmel A.

AU - Miller, Jeremy K.

AU - Moore, Katherine S.

AU - Meixner, Johannes M.

AU - Munafo, Marcus R.

AU - Neijenhuijs, Koen I.

AU - Nilsonne, Gustav

AU - Nosek, Brian A.

AU - Plessow, Franziska

AU - Prenoveau, Jason M.

AU - Ricker, Ashley A.

AU - Schmidt, Kathleen

AU - Spies, Jeffrey R.

AU - Stieger, Stefan

AU - Strohminger, Nina

AU - Sullivan, Gavin B.

AU - van Aert, Robbie C. M.

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

AU - Vanpaemel, Wolf

AU - Vianello, Michelangelo

AU - Voracek, Martin

AU - Zuni, Kellylynn

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.

KW - REPLICATION

U2 - 10.1126/science.aad9163

DO - 10.1126/science.aad9163

M3 - Editorial

SN - 0036-8075

VL - 351

SP - 1037

JO - Science

JF - Science

IS - 6277

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this