Thinking Beyond RVCN: Addressing the Complexity of Replication Target Selection

Isager, van ’t Veer and Lakens (2025) proposed a quantitative operationalization of replication value (denoted RVCN), using average yearly citation count and sample size as proxies for value and uncertainty, respectively. In this commentary, we suggest that the approach of Isager et al., while a good theoretical departure point, oversimplifies the complex decision-making process that underpins replication target selection in practice. We present what we view as some issues with RVCN, notably the use of citation count and ambiguity as to whether RVCN is prescriptive or descriptive. We also present preliminary empirical evidence that RVCN diverges on its performance as a replication target selection method, compared with existing selection methods (such as those published by us in the past). We conclude with the recommendation that going forward, approaches should emphasize the multifaceted nature of replication target selection to maximize their practical utility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Meta-Psychology
Published
2025-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2024.4323
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Thinking Beyond RVCN: Addressing the Complexity of Replication Target Selection

Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Don Van Ravenzwaaij, Sarahanne Field
Meta-Psychology
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Thinking Beyond RVCN: Addressing the Complexity of Replication Target Selection

Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Don Van Ravenzwaaij, Sarahanne Field
article en

Abstract

Isager, van ’t Veer and Lakens (2025) proposed a quantitative operationalization of replication value (denoted RVCN), using average yearly citation count and sample size as proxies for value and uncertainty, respectively. In this commentary, we suggest that the approach of Isager et al., while a good theoretical departure point, oversimplifies the complex decision-making process that underpins replication target selection in practice. We present what we view as some issues with RVCN, notably the use of citation count and ambiguity as to whether RVCN is prescriptive or descriptive. We also present preliminary empirical evidence that RVCN diverges on its performance as a replication target selection method, compared with existing selection methods (such as those published by us in the past). We conclude with the recommendation that going forward, approaches should emphasize the multifaceted nature of replication target selection to maximize their practical utility.

Meta-PsychologyVol. 9
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
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.