IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/cff9c2f16bb544c4bcca530c032740b7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Response to Comment on "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science"

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Chandler
  • et. al

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Chandler & et. al, 2016. "Response to Comment on "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science"," Mathematica Policy Research Reports cff9c2f16bb544c4bcca530c0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:cff9c2f16bb544c4bcca530c032740b7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.3.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    2. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    3. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Allan Drazen & Anna Dreber & Erkut Y. Ozbay & Erik Snowberg, 2019. "A Journal-Based Replication of "Being Chosen to Lead"," CESifo Working Paper Series 7942, CESifo.
    5. Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2016. "A Research Symbiont," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 351(6280), pages 1405-1406.
    6. Robert A. Peterson & U. N. Umesh, 2018. "On the significance of statistically insignificant results in consumer behavior experiments," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 81-91, January.
    7. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    8. Opoku-Agyemang, Kweku A., 2017. "A Human-Computer Interaction Approach for Integrity in Economics," SocArXiv ra3cs, Center for Open Science.
    9. Franziska Emmerling & Carolien Martijn & Hugo J E M Alberts & Alix C Thomson & Bastian David & Daniel Kessler & Teresa Schuhmann & Alexander T Sack, 2017. "The (non-)replicability of regulatory resource depletion: A field report employing non-invasive brain stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    10. Leonhard Held, 2020. "A new standard for the analysis and design of replication studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 431-448, February.
    11. Gert G. Wagner & Benedikt Fecher, 2016. "Research parasites are beneficial for the organism as a whole: competition between researchers creates a symbiotic relationship," RatSWD Working Papers 256, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    12. Samuel Pawel & Leonhard Held, 2020. "Probabilistic forecasting of replication studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Freese, Jeremy & Peterson, David, 2017. "Replication in Social Science," SocArXiv 5bck9, Center for Open Science.
    14. Xiaofang Shen & Fei Yin & Can Jiao, 2023. "Predictive Models of Life Satisfaction in Older People: A Machine Learning Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-18, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:cff9c2f16bb544c4bcca530c032740b7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.