Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:17:55.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An argument for how (and why) to incentivise replication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

Piers D. L. Howe  and
Amy Perfors
Piers D. L. Howe
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia. pdhowe@unimelb.edu.auamy.perfors@unimelb.edu.auhttps://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person340666http://psychologicalsciences.unimelb.edu.au/research/chdh/ccs
Amy Perfors
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia. pdhowe@unimelb.edu.auamy.perfors@unimelb.edu.auhttps://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person340666http://psychologicalsciences.unimelb.edu.au/research/chdh/ccs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Zwaan et al. (2018) have made a compelling case as to why direct replications should occur more frequently than they do, they do not address how such replications attempts can best be encouraged. We propose a novel method for incentivising replication attempts and discuss some issues surrounding its implementation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, S. F., Kelly, K. & Maxwell, S. E. (2017) Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method of adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science 28(11):1547–62.Google Scholar
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahník, S., Bernstein, M. J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C. C., Cemalcilar, Z., Chandler, J., Cheong, W., Davis, W. E., Devos, T., Eisner, M., Frankowska, N., Furrow, D., Galliani, E. M., Hasselman, F., Hicks, J. A., Hovermale, J. F., Hunt, S. J., Hunstinger, J. R., IJerzman, H., John, M.-S., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Kappes, H. B., Krueger, L. E., Kurtz, J., Levitan, C. A., Mallett, R. K., Morris, W. L., Nelson, A. J., Nier, J. A., Packard, G., Pilati, R., Rutchick, A. M., Schmidt, K., Skorinko, J. L., Smith, R., Steiner, T. G., Storbeck, J., Van Swol, L. M., Thompson, D., van't Veer, A. E., Vaughn, L. A., Vranka, M., Wichman, A. L., Woodzicka, J. A. & Nosek, B. A. (2014a) Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology 45(3):142–52. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178.Google Scholar
Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A. & Hegarty, B. (2012) Replications in psychology research: How often do they occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6):537–42.Google Scholar
Martin, G. N. & Clarke, M. (2017) Are psychology journals anti-replication? A snapshot of editorial practices. Frontiers in Psychology 8(523):1–6.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar