How can we make sound replication decisions?

Replication and the reported crises impacting many fields of research have become a focal point for the sciences. This has led to reforms in publishing, methodological design and reporting, and increased numbers of experimental replications coordinated across many laboratories. While replication is rightly considered an indispensable tool of science, financial resources and researchers' time are quite limited. In this perspective, we examine different values and attitudes that scientists can consider when deciding whether to replicate a finding and how. We offer a conceptual framework for assessing the usefulness of various replication tools, such as preregistration.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2025-01-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401236121
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.99

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How can we make sound replication decisions?

Daniel J. Schad, Juliana Freire, Alexandra Sarafoglou, Clintin P. Davis‐Stober et al.
5 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
6.99
article

How can we make sound replication decisions?

Daniel J. Schad, Juliana Freire, Alexandra Sarafoglou, Clintin P. Davis‐Stober, Odd Erik Gundersen, Don van Ravenzwaaij, Klaus Oberauer, Susanne Ressl, Judith ter Schure, Balázs Aczél, Suyog Chandramouli, Sarahanne Field, Timothy M. Errington, Katya Tentori, Ayelet Fishbach, Franco Pestilli, John P. A. Ioannidis, Joachim Vandekerckhove
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Replication and the reported crises impacting many fields of research have become a focal point for the sciences. This has led to reforms in publishing, methodological design and reporting, and increased numbers of experimental replications coordinated across many laboratories. While replication is rightly considered an indispensable tool of science, financial resources and researchers' time are quite limited. In this perspective, we examine different values and attitudes that scientists can consider when deciding whether to replicate a finding and how. We offer a conceptual framework for assessing the usefulness of various replication tools, such as preregistration.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 122(5)
Eötvös Loránd University (HU), University of Groningen (NL), University of Potsdam (DE), University of Trento (IT), Princeton University (US), University of Zurich (CH), University of California, Irvine (US), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), Center for Open Science (US), University of California System (US), Booth University College (CA), University of Chicago (US), Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Psychology (CZ), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), Innovative Research (United States) (US), New York University (US), University of Missouri (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US), University of Amsterdam (NL), Hologic (Germany) (DE), Stanford University (US), Aalto University (FI)
National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense, University of Chicago, University of Texas at Austin, Wellcome Trust, Nokia Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Advanced Research Projects Agency, Amsterdam Brain and Cognition
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
6.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.