The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · cited 2×
“In 32 studies out of 39 that used participants (excluding Reuter, 2011, that used internet hits as data points), the replicationN was greater than the originalN.”
BackgroundResultPower failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 3×
“Because initial effect size estimates in the literature tend to be inflated due to publication bias (Anderson et al. 2017; Button et al. 2013), we elected to use a higher than usual power assumption 9 In this respect, our methodology differed from the OSC’s methodology, which instructed replication…”
BackgroundMethodSimmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209
A manifesto for reproducible science
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · Cited by 3,397
Redefine statistical significance
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., et al. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z · Cited by 2,772
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Cited by
Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M. B., et al. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157 · Cited by 770
Self-citationSoto, C. J. (2019) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797619831612 · Cited by 470
Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology
Errington, T. M., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.67995 · Cited by 267
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., et al. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245920958687 · Cited by 105
Byrd, N., & Conway, P. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Cova, F., Strickland, B., Abatista, A., Allard, A., Andow, J., Attie, M., Beebe, J., Berniūnas, R., Boudesseul, J., Colombo, M., Cushman, F., Diaz, R., N’Djaye Nikolai van Dongen, N., Dranseika, V., Earp, B. D., Torres, A. G., Hannikainen, I., Hernández-Conde, J. V., Hu, W., Jaquet, F., Khalifa, K., Kim, H., Kneer, M., Knobe, J., Kurthy, M., Lantian, A., Liao, S.-Y., Machery, E., Moerenhout, T., Mott, C., Phelan, M., Phillips, J., Rambharose, N., Reuter, K., Romero, F., Sousa, P., Sprenger, J., Thalabard, E., Tobia, K., Viciana, H., Wilkenfeld, D., & Zhou, X.
- Venue
- Review of Philosophy and Psychology
- Published
- 2018-06-14
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-44
- ISSN
- 1878-5158 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-5166
- OpenAlex
- W2797413227
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 23.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13164-018-0400-9
- The paper
- Cova, F., Strickland, B., Abatista, A., Allard, A., Andow, J., Attie, M., Beebe, J., Berniūnas, R., Boudesseul, J., Colombo, M., Cushman, F., Diaz, R., N’Djaye Nikolai van Dongen, N., Dranseika, V., Earp, B. D., Torres, A. G., Hannikainen, I., Hernández-Conde, J. V., Hu, W., . . . Zhou, X. (2021). Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-018-0400-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
