ArticlePerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2022
Is Psychological Science Self-Correcting? Citations Before and After Successful and Failed Replications.
Article in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational Lifestyle Medicine Approaches to Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reflections on Conducting a Large Replication Project in Sports and Exercise Science.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Failing to replicate predicts citation declines in psychology.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Article
- Reproducibility in the Social Sciences.Annual review of sociology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In principle, successful replications should enhance the credibility of scientific findings, and failed replications should reduce credibility. Yet it is unknown how replication typically affects the influence of research. We analyzed the citation history of 98 articles. Each was published by a selective psychology journal in 2008 and subjected to a replication attempt published in 2015. Relative to successful replications, failed replications reduced citations of replicated studies by only 5% to 9% on average, an amount that did not differ significantly from zero. Less than 3% of articles citing the original studies cited the replication attempt. It does not appear that replication failure much reduced the influence of nonreplicated findings in psychology. To increase the influence of replications, we recommend (a) requiring authors to cite replication studies alongside the individual findings and (b) enhancing reference databases and search engines to give higher priority to replication studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.