Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26315443›Full record

ArticleScience (New York, N.Y.)2015

PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

Open Science Collaboration

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,727 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,727citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,727 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Trial
  10. Reproducibility of social science research using aggregate statistics with noise infused for differential privacy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Patients might distrust honest doctors.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Refined trial sequential analysis for meta-analyses with few studies.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,667 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Open Science Collaboration

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

Indexed as

Behavioral ResearchPsychologyPublishingResearchConfidence IntervalsPeriodicals as TopicPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.