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

Christopher J Anderson; Štěpán Bahník; 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 Munafò; 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, Štěpán Bahník, 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 Munafò, 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

Research output: Journal article (peer-reviewed) › Journal article

124 Citations (Scopus)

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
Article number	aad9163
Pages (from-to)	1037-1039
Journal	Science
Volume	351
Issue number	6277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
Publication status	Published - 04 Mar 2016
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Behavioral Research
Psychology
Publishing
Research

Access to Document

10.1126/science.aad9163

Cite this

Anderson, C. J., Bahník, Š., 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), 1037-1039. Article aad9163. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

@article{bde930929c814afaabc26c01217d7fa4,

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 = "Behavioral Research, Psychology, Publishing, Research",

author = "Anderson, \{Christopher J\} and {\v S}t{\v e}p{\'a}n Bahn{\'i}k 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 Munaf{\`o}, \{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",

note = "Funding Information: Preparation of this response was supported by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.",

year = "2016",

month = mar,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1126/science.aad9163",

language = "English",

volume = "351",

pages = "1037--1039",

journal = "Science",

issn = "0036-8075",

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

number = "6277",

}

Anderson, CJ, Bahník, Š, 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. 351, no. 6277, aad9163, pp. 1037-1039. 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 - Bahník, Štěpán

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 - Munafò, 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

N1 - Funding Information: Preparation of this response was supported by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.

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 - Behavioral Research

KW - Psychology

KW - Publishing

KW - Research

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84960153698

U2 - 10.1126/science.aad9163

DO - 10.1126/science.aad9163

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 26941312

SN - 0036-8075

VL - 351

SP - 1037

EP - 1039

JO - Science

JF - Science

IS - 6277

M1 - aad9163

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this