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

Overview

Paper Summary › Explain Like I'm Five › Conflicts of Interest › Identified Limitations › Rating Explanation › Good to know › Topic Hierarchy › File Information ›

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

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.

Explain Like I'm Five

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.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

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.

Identified Limitations

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.

Rating Explanation

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.

Good to know

This is the Starter analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →

Topic Hierarchy

Domain: Social Sciences

Field: Psychology

Subfield: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

File Information

Original Title: The Process of Replication Target Selection in Psychology: What to Consider?

Uploaded: July 14, 2025 at 05:14 PM

Privacy: Public