Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Field, Sarahanne M.
Hoekstra, Rink
Bringmann, Laura
van Ravenzwaaij, Don
Savalei, Victoria
and
Savalei, Victoria
2019.
When and Why to Replicate: As Easy as 1, 2, 3?.
Collabra: Psychology,
Vol. 5,
Issue. 1,
Tiokhin, Leonid
Hackman, Joseph
Munira, Shirajum
Jesmin, Khaleda
and
Hruschka, Daniel
2019.
Generalizability is not optional: insights from a cross-cultural study of social discounting.
Royal Society Open Science,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 2,
p.
181386.
Büttner, Fionn
Toomey, Elaine
McClean, Shane
Roe, Mark
and
Delahunt, Eamonn
2020.
Are questionable research practices facilitating new discoveries in sport and exercise medicine? The proportion of supported hypotheses is implausibly high.
British Journal of Sports Medicine,
Vol. 54,
Issue. 22,
p.
1365.
Gordon, Michael
Viganola, Domenico
Bishop, Michael
Chen, Yiling
Dreber, Anna
Goldfedder, Brandon
Holzmeister, Felix
Johannesson, Magnus
Liu, Yang
Twardy, Charles
Wang, Juntao
and
Pfeiffer, Thomas
2020.
Are replication rates the same across academic fields? Community forecasts from the DARPA SCORE programme.
Royal Society Open Science,
Vol. 7,
Issue. 7,
p.
200566.
Lewandowsky, Stephan
and
Oberauer, Klaus
2020.
Low replicability can support robust and efficient science.
Nature Communications,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 1,
Martin, Jeffrey
and
Martin, Drew
2021.
The N-Pact Factor, Replication, Power, and Quantitative Research in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly.
Kinesiology Review,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 3,
p.
363.
Anvari, Farid
Olsen, Jerome
Hung, Wing Yiu
and
Feldman, Gilad
2021.
Misprediction of affective outcomes due to different evaluation modes: Replication and extension of two distinction bias experiments by Hsee and Zhang (2004).
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 92,
Issue. ,
p.
104052.
Chandrashekar, Subramanya Prasad
Weber, Jasmin
Chan, Sze Ying
Cho, Won Young
Chu, Tsz Ching Connie
Cheng, Bo Ley
and
Feldman, Gilad
2021.
Accentuation and compatibility: Replication and extensions of Shafir (1993) to rethink choosing versus rejecting paradigms.
Judgment and Decision Making,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 1,
p.
36.
Rohrer, Julia M.
Tierney, Warren
Uhlmann, Eric L.
DeBruine, Lisa M.
Heyman, Tom
Jones, Benedict
Schmukle, Stefan C.
Silberzahn, Raphael
Willén, Rebecca M.
Carlsson, Rickard
Lucas, Richard E.
Strand, Julia
Vazire, Simine
Witt, Jessica K.
Zentall, Thomas R.
Chabris, Christopher F.
and
Yarkoni, Tal
2021.
Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project.
Perspectives on Psychological Science,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 6,
p.
1255.
Ziano, Ignazio
Xiao, Qinyu
Yeung, Siu Kit
Wong, Cho Yan
Cheung, Mei Yee
Lo, Chung Yi Joey
Yan, Ho Ching
Narendra, Gregorius Ivan
Kwan, Li Wing
Chow, Ching Sum
Man, Chak Yam
and
Feldman, Gilad
2021.
Numbing or sensitization? Replications and extensions of Fetherstonhaugh et al. (1997)'s “Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life”.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 97,
Issue. ,
p.
104222.
Heirene, Robert M.
2021.
A call for replications of addiction research: which studies should we replicate and what constitutes a ‘successful’ replication?.
Addiction Research & Theory,
Vol. 29,
Issue. 2,
p.
89.
Barczak, Gloria
Hopp, Christian
Kaminski, Jermain
Piller, Frank
and
Pruschak, Gernot
2022.
How open is innovation research? – An empirical analysis of data sharing among innovation scholars.
Industry and Innovation,
Vol. 29,
Issue. 2,
p.
186.
Mesquida, Cristian
Murphy, Jennifer
Lakens, Daniël
and
Warne, Joe
2022.
Replication concerns in sports and exercise science: a narrative review of selected methodological issues in the field.
Royal Society Open Science,
Vol. 9,
Issue. 12,
Sparrow-Downes, Victoria M.
Trincao-Batra, Sara
Cloutier, Paula
Helleman, Amanda R.
Salamatmanesh, Mina
Gardner, William
Baksh, Anton
Kapur, Rishi
Sheridan, Nicole
Suntharalingam, Sinthuja
Currie, Lisa
Carrie, Liam D.
Hamilton, Arthur
and
Pajer, Kathleen
2022.
Peripheral and neural correlates of self-harm in children and adolescents: a scoping review.
BMC Psychiatry,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 1,
Miller, Jeff
and
Ulrich, Rolf
2022.
Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?.
Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 73,
Issue. 1,
p.
691.
Pittelkow, Merle-Marie
Field, Sarahanne M.
Isager, Peder M.
van’t Veer, Anna E.
Anderson, Thomas
Cole, Scott N.
Dominik, Tomáš
Giner-Sorolla, Roger
Gok, Sebahat
Heyman, Tom
Jekel, Marc
Luke, Timothy J.
Mitchell, David B.
Peels, Rik
Pendrous, Rosina
Sarrazin, Samuel
Schauer, Jacob M.
Specker, Eva
Tran, Ulrich S.
Vranka, Marek A.
Wicherts, Jelte M.
Yoshimura, Naoto
Zwaan, Rolf A.
and
van Ravenzwaaij, Don
2023.
The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?.
Royal Society Open Science,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 2,
Tufanaru, Catalin
Surian, Didi
Scott, Anna Mae
Glasziou, Paul
and
Coiera, Enrico
2024.
The 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) method was successfully blind-replicated by another team: a case study.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
Vol. 165,
Issue. ,
p.
111197.
Target article
Making replication mainstream
Related commentaries (36)
A Bayesian decision-making framework for replication
A pragmatist philosophy of psychological science and its implications for replication
An argument for how (and why) to incentivise replication
Bayesian belief updating after a replication experiment
Conceptualizing and evaluating replication across domains of behavioral research
Constraints on generality statements are needed to define direct replication
Data replication matters to an underpowered study, but replicated hypothesis corroboration counts
Direct replication and clinical psychological science
Direct replications in the era of open sampling
Don't characterize replications as successes or failures
Enhancing research credibility when replication is not feasible
Holding replication studies to mainstream standards of evidence
How to make replications mainstream
If we accept that poor replication rates are mainstream
Introducing a replication-first rule for Ph.D. projects
Making prepublication independent replication mainstream
Making replication prestigious
Putting replication in its place
Replication is already mainstream: Lessons from small-N designs
Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress
Scientific progress is like doing a puzzle, not building a wall
Selecting target papers for replication
Strong scientific theorizing is needed to improve replicability in psychological science
The costs and benefits of replication studies
The importance of exact conceptual replications
The meaning of a claim is its reproducibility
The replicability revolution
Three strong moves to improve research and replications alike
Three ways to make replication mainstream
To make innovations such as replication mainstream, publish them in mainstream journals
Verifiability is a core principle of science
Verify original results through reanalysis before replicating
What have we learned? What can we learn?
What the replication reformation wrought
Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery
You are not your data
Author response
Improving social and behavioral science by making replication mainstream: A response to commentaries