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

ISSN
1095-9203
0036-8075
Date Issued
2016
Author(s)
Anderson, Christopher J.
Bahnik, Stepan
Barnett-Cowan, Michael
Bosco, Frank A.
Chandler, Jesse
Chartier, Christopher R.
Cheung, Felix
Christopherson, Cody D.
Cremata, Edward J.
Della Penna, Nicolas
Estel, Vivien
Fedor, Anna
Fitneva, Stanka A.
Frank, Michael C.
Grange, James A.
Hartshorne, Joshua K.
Hasselman, Fred
Henninger, Felix
van der Hulst, Marije
Jonas, Kai J.
Lai, Calvin K.
Levitan, Carmel A.
Miller, Jeremy K.
Moore, Katherine S.
Meixner, Johannes M.
Munafo, Marcus R.
Neijenhuijs, Koen I.
Nilsonne, Gustav
Nosek, Brian A.
Plessow, Franziska
Prenoveau, Jason M.
Ricker, Ashley A.
Schmidt, Kathleen
Spies, Jeffrey R.
Stieger, Stefan
Strohminger, Nina
Sullivan, Gavin B.
van Aert, Robbie C. M.
van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
Vanpaemel, Wolf
Vianello, Michelangelo
Voracek, Martin
Zuni, Kellylynn
DOI
10.1126/science.aad9163
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.