ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the replicability of physiological responses.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Article
- Advancing the psychology of social class with large-scale replications in four countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- A scoping review on metrics to quantify reproducibility: a multitude of questions leads to a multitude of metrics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- How will developmental neuroimaging contribute to the prediction of neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorders? Challenges and opportunities.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science.Journal of open psychology data · 2024Article
- Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cumulative scientific progress requires empirical results that are robust enough to support theory construction and extension. Yet in psychology, some prominent findings have failed to replicate, and large-scale studies suggest replicability issues are widespread. The identification of predictors of replication success is limited by the difficulty of conducting large samples of independent replication experiments, however: most investigations reanalyse the same set of
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.