Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”
By 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
Level College / Upper Division (Undergraduates) · For Student · Language English
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.
