The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress
Open accessAbstract
The credibility revolution (sometimes referred to as the “replicability crisis”) in psychology has brought about many changes in the standards by which psychological science is evaluated. These changes include (a) greater emphasis on transparency and openness, (b) a move toward preregistration of research, (c) more direct-replication studies, and (d) higher standards for the quality and quantity of evidence needed to make strong scientific claims. What are the implications of these changes for productivity, creativity, and progress in psychological science? These questions can and should be studied empirically, and I present my predictions here. The productivity of individual researchers is likely to decline, although some changes (e.g., greater collaboration, data sharing) may mitigate this effect. The effects of these changes on creativity are likely to be mixed: Researchers will be less likely to pursue risky questions; more likely to use a broad range of methods, designs, and populations; and less free to define their own best practices and standards of evidence. Finally, the rate of scientific progress—the most important shared goal of scientists—is likely to increase as a result of these changes, although one’s subjective experience of making progress will likely become rarer.
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 · Cited by 21,170
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
Power 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
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
WEIRD languages have misled us, too
Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1000018x · Cited by 4,076
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations
Kaplan, N., Merton, R. K., & Storer, N. W. (1974) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3102264 · Cited by 4,005
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
Self-citationPromoting an open research culture
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab2374 · Cited by 2,708
Self-citationAngrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2010) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.3 · Cited by 1,566
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-citationBehavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3 · Cited by 537
The past, present and future of Registered Reports
Chambers, C. D., & Tzavella, L. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7 · Cited by 499
The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns
Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N. M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., Fournier, M. A., Hu, C. S., Nusbaum, H. C., & Vervaeke, J. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1750917 · Cited by 330
“Meta-scientists in social and behavioral sciences call for intellectual humility and open-mindedness to overcome the replication crisis (e.g., Vazire, 2018).”
BackgroundPost‐traumatic growth as positive personality change: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations
Jayawickreme, E., Infurna, F. J., Alajak, K., Blackie, L. E. R., Chopik, W. J., Chung, J. M., Dorfman, A., Fleeson, W., Forgeard, M. J. C., Frazier, P., et al. (2021) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12591 · Cited by 333
“Amid the credibility revolution (Vazire, 2018), a researcher interested in examining PTG as positive personality change in a specific sample may wonder how well preregistration can work for them.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Vazire, S.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 411-417
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2809932687
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 44.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1745691617751884
- The paper
- Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884
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.
