To Replicate or Not to Replicate: Scientists Spill the Tea on Why They Chose *That* Study (and Made a Checklist)

Descripción general

Resumen del artículo › Explícamelo como si tuviera cinco años › Conflictos de intereses › Limitaciones identificadas › Explicación de la calificación › Conviene saber › Jerarquía temática › Información del archivo ›

Resumen del artículo

Título de Paperzilla

This study developed a 13-item checklist for transparently reporting the rationale behind replication target selection in psychology. Based on surveys and a Delphi study, researchers identified 'interest', 'doubt', 'impact', 'methodology', and 'feasibility' as key considerations when choosing a study to replicate, emphasizing the importance of clear communication over prescriptive guidelines.

Explícamelo como si tuviera cinco años

Scientists found that when they want to check if an old experiment is true, they need good reasons for picking which one. They even made a checklist to help other scientists explain why they chose a specific experiment to re-do.

Posibles conflictos de intereses

Some of the authors have previously published on the topic of replication, indicating a pre-existing interest and potential bias. However, they employed a transparent, consensus-based approach and disclosed this information.

Limitaciones identificadas

Limited Generalizability

The authors acknowledge potential limitations in generalizability due to the sample being heavily drawn from cognitive and experimental, and social psychology. This raises concerns that the checklist may not fully reflect the priorities and considerations of other subfields within psychology or other social sciences.

Arbitrary Consensus

The definition of "consensus" using a median of 7 and IQR of 2 is somewhat arbitrary, as there are no universally agreed-upon criteria. The authors themselves note instability in some item responses, highlighting the subjective nature of the decision process.

Fuzzy Replication Types

The distinction between "close" and "conceptual" replications proved problematic in practice, with respondents applying inconsistent criteria. This blurring of definitions hinders the checklist's application, as it's based on a somewhat artificial typology.

Deviations from Sampling Plan

Although the survey garnered a reasonable number of responses, the authors deviated from their planned sample size and duration for Stage 3, potentially impacting the stability and generalizability of their findings.

Explicación de la calificación

This registered report presents a useful framework for transparently reporting replication target selection. While the checklist itself is valuable, methodological limitations and issues with defining key concepts (e.g., "consensus," "replication type") prevent a higher rating. The authors' attempts to mitigate potential biases by using crowdsourcing and Delphi methods strengthen the work, while the acknowledged limitations and deviations from the sampling plan warrant some caution.

Conviene saber

Este es el análisis de Starter. Paperzilla Pro verifica cada cita, investiga los antecedentes de los autores y las fuentes de financiación, y utiliza razonamiento avanzado con IA para ofrecer información más exhaustiva.

Explorar Pro →

Jerarquía temática

Dominio: Ciencias sociales

Campo: Psicología

Subcampo: Psicología experimental y cognitiva

Información del archivo

Título original: The Process of Replication Target Selection in Psychology: What to Consider?

Subido: 14 jul 2025, 17:14:28

Privacidad: Público