login

Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

SciencePublished 3 March 2016
Daniel T. Gilbert, Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, Timothy D. Wilson
Citations500
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score10.42
SNIP6.62

TL;DR

It is shown that this article contains three statistical errors and provides no support for the conclusion that the reproducibility of psychological science is surprisingly low, and that the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion.

Abstract

A paper from the Open Science Collaboration (Research Articles, 28 August 2015, aac4716) attempting to replicate 100 published studies suggests that the reproducibility of psychological science is surprisingly low. We show that this article contains three statistical errors and provides no support for such a conclusion. Indeed, the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.

Keywords

PsychologyDecision Sciences