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, Nicolas Della Penna, Vivien Estel, Anna Fedor, Stanka A Fitneva, Michael C Frank, James A Grange, Joshua K Hartshorne, Fred Hasselman, Felix Henninger, Marije van der HulstKai J Jonas, Calvin K Lai, Carmel A Levitan, Jeremy K Miller, Katherine S Moore, Johannes M Meixner, Marcus R Munafò, Koen I Neijenhuijs, Gustav Nilsonne, Brian A Nosek, Franziska Plessow, Jason M Prenoveau, Ashley A Ricker, Kathleen Schmidt, Jeffrey R Spies, Stefan Stieger, Nina Strohminger, Gavin B Sullivan, Robbie C M van Aert, Marcel A L M van Assen, Wolf Vanpaemel, Michelangelo Vianello, Martin Voracek, Kellylynn Zuni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1037
Issue number6277
Publication statusPublished - 2016


  • Behavioral Research
  • Psychology
  • Publishing
  • Research
  • Comment
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't


Dive into the research topics of 'Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this