The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Replication studies: Bad copy
Overview
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
1 retracted
Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination
Stapel, D. A., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1201068 · Cited by 53
RetractedWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Simmons, 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
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230 · Cited by 2,736
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M. I.-C., & Burrows, L. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.230 · Cited by 2,636
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239
Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Fanelli, D. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 · Cited by 1,248
Sterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964
Bem, D. J. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021524 · Cited by 893
Cited by
The Chicago face database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5 · Cited by 1,788
Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616658637 · Cited by 1,372
Nosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301
An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612463078 · Cited by 1,042
Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x14545513 · Cited by 609
Metadata
- Authors
- Yong, E.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2012-05-16
- Volume
- 485
- Issue
- 7398
- Pages
- 298-300
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W1975353659
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 16
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Replication studies: Bad copy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/485298a
- The paper
- Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a
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.
