FLoRA Explorer
Tracking reproductions and replications across the sciences and humanities.
Tracking reproductions and replications across the sciences and humanities.
FLoRA tracks attempts to repeatedly test published findings across the sciences and humanities. Unlike the FORRT Replication Database (FReD), FLoRA does not include statistical data — this lets it cover every field of research and allows much faster expansion.
Replications intentionally repeat prior research to test whether the original findings hold. To be included in FLoRA, a study must:
Replications range from close/direct (same methods, same population) to conceptual (same hypothesis, different methods). Outcomes are tagged Successful, Failed, or Mixed based on how the replication authors characterise their results.
Reproductions verify whether reported results can be obtained from the original study's data and methods. They are coded on two dimensions:
FLoRA links each repetition reference to its original, and assigns a standardized outcome based on the repetition report. This simple structure lets us track replication rates across time, disciplines, and journals — and powers tools like the FLoRA Annotator, which lists replication and reproduction attempts for any reference you provide.
FLoRA is the product of years of work by a large community of volunteers. If you'd like to contribute or use the data for your own research, please reach out.
If you use the underlying dataset, please cite it as:
If you report results based on this website, please cite it as:
| Original Study | Year | Replication Study | Year | Outcome | Type | Original DOI | Replication Report |
|---|
How have the findings of studies from different eras fared when scientists have tried to replicate them? Each bar groups replication and reproduction attempts by the year the original study was published, split into Successful, Mixed, Failed, and other outcomes.
Use this to see how findings from different historical periods have held up in subsequent replication efforts.
Studies without a recorded original publication year are excluded.
Grouped by the year of the replication itself, this view shows the growth of FLoRA's coverage and how outcome profiles have shifted over time as replication practice has matured.
The rightmost years may reflect ongoing data entry rather than a genuine decline in activity.
Replications without a recorded year are excluded.
The journals whose articles have most frequently been the target of replication attempts. For each journal, the bar shows the outcome breakdown of those attempts.
Frequency here reflects where replication attention has been focused — not necessarily a journal's overall replicability.
Where replication studies are themselves being published. Each bar shows the outcome breakdown of replications appearing in a given journal.
This view highlights the venues that publish replication research most actively — including journals dedicated to replications and registered reports.
Annotation of replication-journal data is a work in progress; some journals may be missing or under-represented at the moment.
A bird's-eye view grouping studies by research discipline. Each bar shows the outcome breakdown of replication and reproduction attempts targeting work originally published in journals from that field.
Disciplines are inferred from the original study's journal name using a hand-curated dictionary. Journals that have not been mapped yet are collected under Uncategorized.
Coverage is still growing — many journals are not yet classified, so some fields may be under-represented and Uncategorized may dominate. The dictionary is straightforward to extend.