Replication value as a function of citation impact and sample size: response to commentaries

The primary goal of our target article (Isager et al., 2025) is to give the research community an example of what a well-justified replication value metric could look like, and to encourage discussion of how replication value could be quantified in practice. Furthermore, in the target article we discuss practical hurdles to quantification and possible practical applications for RVCn and other metrics. As that article proposes a method for how to do research–in this case a method to select which claims in the literature need replication most–it is important to receive criticism, feedback, and viewpoints from a diverse range of authors interested in this topic. We are delighted to read the many thoughtful yet critical commentaries, several of which proposing adjustments or alternatives to the equations we have proposed in the target article. This is very encouraging to see, as our aim with initiating this call in Meta-Psychology was to create an open dialogue in the scientific record. RVCn is an efficient but limited metric. Its limitations should be laid bare, and we fully expect that improved metrics and selection procedures can be created in the future. We hope our target article and these commentaries together will inspire readers to continue the discussion of how to efficiently and transparently select studies for replication. In this rejoinder we will summarize what we see as the major themes touched on in the commentaries, and we will reply to some of the specific proposals and criticisms brought up by different commentary authors.