Replicate This

A Community Registry for Scientific Verification

Code of Conduct

This registry exists to support a constructive and collaborative culture around scientific replication and reproducibility. Nominations are intended to highlight studies that would be valuable to reproduce or replicate, not to criticize or shame authors.

Respect for Authors

A nomination should be understood as recognition that a study is influential, important, or methodologically interesting enough to merit independent verification. Many papers listed here will be widely cited, policy-relevant, or theoretically significant. Being nominated does not imply that the original research is flawed, incorrect, or unreliable.

Constructive Framing

Nominations must be written in a professional and respectful tone. Submissions should explain why a replication or reproduction would be scientifically valuable—for example because a result is influential, surprising, methodologically innovative, or difficult to verify using available information.

Submissions must not include:

Focus on Research Questions

Nominations should focus on the study and its scientific contribution, not on the individuals involved. The goal is to identify work that would benefit the research community from further confirmation, clarification, or robustness analysis.

Moderation

All nominations are moderated before appearing publicly. Submissions that do not meet the standards of respectful and constructive communication may be edited or rejected.

Community Norm

Replication and reproduction are normal and essential parts of the scientific process. This registry aims to promote a culture in which verification of results is seen as a positive and routine aspect of scholarship.