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,
Hoogeveen, Suzanne
Sarafoglou, Alexandra
and
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
2020.
Laypeople Can Predict Which Social-Science Studies Will Be Replicated Successfully.
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,
Vol. 3,
Issue. 3,
p.
267.
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,
Murphy, Jennifer
Mesquida, Cristian
Caldwell, Aaron R.
Earp, Brian D.
and
Warne, Joe P.
2023.
Proposal of a Selection Protocol for Replication of Studies in Sports and Exercise Science.
Sports Medicine,
Vol. 53,
Issue. 1,
p.
281.
Nagle, Charlie
and
Hiver, Phil
2024.
Optimizing second language pronunciation instruction: Replications of Martin and Sippel (2021), Olson and Offerman (2021), and Thomson (2012).
Language Teaching,
Vol. 57,
Issue. 3,
p.
419.
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