Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26941312›Full record

ArticleScience (New York, N.Y.)2016

Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science".

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 and 34 more

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools.JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Predictive Models of Life Satisfaction in Older People: A Machine Learning Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Science is not a signal detection problem.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Replicator degrees of freedom allow publication of misleading failures to replicate.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Criminalization of scientific misconduct.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Does health informatics have a replication crisis?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

44 authors.

Christopher J AndersonRussell Sage College, Troy, NY, USA. nosek@virginia.edu.
Štěpán BahníkUniversity of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Michael Barnett-CowanUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Frank A BoscoVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jesse ChandlerUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC, USA.
Christopher R ChartierAshland University, Ashland, OH, USA.
Felix CheungMichigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Cody D ChristophersonSouthern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA.
Andreas CordesUniversity of Göttingen, Institute for Psychology, Göttingen, Germany.
Edward J CremataUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicolas Della PennaAustralian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Vivien EstelTechnische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Anna FedorParmenides Stiftung, Munich, Germany.
Stanka A FitnevaQueen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Michael C FrankStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
James A GrangeKeele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Joshua K HartshorneBoston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Fred HasselmanRadboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Felix HenningerUniversity of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Marije van der HulstErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kai J JonasUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Calvin K LaiHarvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Carmel A LevitanOccidental College, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jeremy K MillerWillamette University, Salem, OR, USA.
Katherine S MooreArcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
Johannes M MeixnerUniversity of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Marcus R MunafòUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Koen I NeijenhuijsVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gustav NilsonneKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Brian A NosekCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. nosek@virginia.edu.
Franziska PlessowHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jason M PrenoveauLoyola University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ashley A RickerUniversity of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Kathleen SchmidtWesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA.
Jeffrey R SpiesCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Stefan StiegerUniversity of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Nina StrohmingerYale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Gavin B SullivanCoventry University, Coventry, UK.
Robbie C M van AertTilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Marcel A L M van AssenTilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands. Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Wolf VanpaemelUniversity of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Michelangelo VianelloUniversity of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Martin VoracekUniversity of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kellylynn ZuniAdams State University, Alamosa, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Behavioral ResearchPsychologyPublishingResearch

Identifiers

PMID26941312

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.