Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science

Brian A. Nosek*, Tom E. Hardwicke, Hannah Moshontz, Aurélien Allard, Katherine S. Corker, Anna Dreber, Fiona Fidler, J. Hilgard, Melissa Kline, Michèle B. Nuijten, Julia Rohrer, Felipe Romero, A. Scheel, Laura Scherer, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Simine Vazire

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Replication, an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice, is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understanding to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understanding and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges, such as disincentives to conduct replications, framing of replication as personal attack rather than healthy scientific practice, and headwinds for replication contributing to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication, and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, have positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.
Original languageEnglish
JournalAnnual Review of Psychology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this