There’s a ‘technical’ comment on a recent paper that has stirred quite a debate: the reproducibility of psychological science is purportedly quite low. This paper argues that when the results of the original study are corrected for error, power, and bias, there is not much left to conclude that there is a reproducibility crisis. As always in Science, short and to the point. And there’s a response to the comment, too.
Gilbert, Daniel T., Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, and Timothy D. Wilson. 2016. ‘Comment on “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”’. Science 351 (6277): 1037–1037. doi:10.1126/science.aad7243.
Didier Ruedin 