Response to Comment on Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Christopher J. Anderson; Štepán 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, Štepán 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

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

109 Citations (Scopus)

497 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson conclude that evidence from the 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
Number of pages	3
Journal	Science
Volume	351
Issue number	6277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
Publication status	Published - 4 Mar 2016

Structured keywords

Brain and Behaviour
Tobacco and Alcohol

Access to Document

10.1126/science.aad9163

OSC.GilbertResponse.Science
This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via American Association for the Advancement of Science at DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9163. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Accepted author manuscript, 106 KB

Handle.net

Persistent link

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., Penna, N. D., 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. [aad9163]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163

@article{90d48710bc7f4514b5dc2c726002e661,

title = "Response to Comment on Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science",

abstract = "Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson conclude that evidence from the 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.",

author = "Anderson, {Christopher J.} and {\v S}tep{\'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 Penna, {Nicolas Della} 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",

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, Penna, ND, 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, Štepán

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 - Penna, Nicolas Della

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

PY - 2016/3/4

Y1 - 2016/3/4

N2 - Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson conclude that evidence from the 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, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson conclude that evidence from the 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960153698&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1126/science.aad9163

DO - 10.1126/science.aad9163

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 26941312

AN - SCOPUS:84960153698

VL - 351

SP - 1037

EP - 1039

JO - Science

JF - Science

SN - 0036-8075

IS - 6277

M1 - aad9163

ER -

Response to Comment on Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Abstract

Structured keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this