The Reproducibility Project: Psychology was published in 2015 and included replications of 100 studies in psychology. The data from this project is open and has been reanalyzed to further our understand of replication, statistics, and methodology in psychology and science more broadly.
This blog post aims to collect a list of articles/preprints/blog entries that have reanalyzed the data from the RPP. If any are missing, please send them to me.
With thanks to Anne Scheel for helping identify papers.
In order of publication…
- Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 351(6277), 1037-1037.
- Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology. PLoS One, 11(2), e0149794.
- Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454-6459.
- Inbar, Y. (2016). Association between contextual dependence and replicability in psychology may be spurious. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(34), E4933-4.
- Bench, S. W., Rivera, G. N., Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., & Lench, H. C. (2017). Does expertise matter in replication? An examination of the reproducibility project: psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 181-184.
- Hartgerink, C. H., Wicherts, J. M., & van Assen, M. A. (2017). Too good to be false: Nonsignificant results revisited. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1).
- Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., & Mandal, S. (2017). On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(517), 1-10.
- …new paper…papers you send me…