Cited by 634Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

The Value of Direct Replication

Simons, Daniel J.·2014·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science. If an effect is reliable, any competent researcher should be able to obtain it when using the same procedures with adequate statistical power. Two of the articles in this special section question the value of direct replication by other laboratories. In this commentary, I discuss the problematic implications of some of their assumptions and argue that direct replication by multiple laboratories is the only way to verify the reliability of an effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691613514755

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simons, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Simons, Daniel J.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2014-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
76-80
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2077240377
Cited by
630
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 18
FWCI
48.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
direct replication, reproducibility, statistical power, replication study, research credibility

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