Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
By Alexander A. Aarts, Joanna E. Anderson, Christopher J. Anderson, Peter Raymond Attridge, A. Attwood, Jordan R. Axt, Molly Babel, Š. Bahník, E. Baranski, Michael Barnett-Cowan and 260 more. Science, 2015
7,174 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/155391192091a99f44b377db1e0e7819f2317498
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Eiko I. Fried
- Sacha Epskamp
- Denny Borsboom
- Blakeley B. McShane
- Joachim Vandekerckhove
- Casper J. Albers
- Ulf Böckenholt
- Lotte Meteyard
In Statistics and Probability
- Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
- Richard D. Morey
- Jeffrey N. Rouder
- Josine Verhagen
- Michael D. Lee
- Alexander Ly
- Joachim Vandekerckhove
- D. Matzke
Citations in the corpus
- Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy (2018, background): “(excluding Reuter, 2011, that used internet hits as data points), the replication N was greater than the original N.”
- Are Relational Inferences from Crowdsourced and Opt-in Samples Generalizable? Comparing Criminal Justice Attitudes in the GSS and Five Online Samples (2019, methodology): “…previously, one straightforward approach to comparing the two sets of results is to examine whether the coefficient for a given variable in the online nonprobability sample falls within the confidence interval for the same variable in probability sample (see, e.g., Open Science Collaboration 2015).”