The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings
Open accessAbstract
Societies invest in scientific studies to better understand the world and attempt to harness such improved understanding to address pressing societal problems. Published research, however, can be useful for theory or application only if it is credible. In science, a credible finding is one that has repeatedly survived risky falsification attempts. However, state-of-the-art meta-analytic approaches cannot determine the credibility of an effect because they do not account for the extent to which each included study has survived such attempted falsification. To overcome this problem, we outline a unified framework for estimating the credibility of published research by examining four fundamental falsifiability-related dimensions: (a) transparency of the methods and data, (b) reproducibility of the results when the same data-processing and analytic decisions are reapplied, (c) robustness of the results to different data-processing and analytic decisions, and (d) replicability of the effect. This framework includes a standardized workflow in which the degree to which a finding has survived scrutiny is quantified along these four facets of credibility. The framework is demonstrated by applying it to published replications in the psychology literature. Finally, we outline a Web implementation of the framework and conclude by encouraging the community of researchers to contribute to the development and crowdsourcing of this platform.
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
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649 · cited 2×
“In science, a credible finding or hypothesis is one that has repeatedly survived high-quality, risky attempts at proving it wrong (Lakatos, 1970; Popper, 1959).”
BackgroundMethodThe Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
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
Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences
Schmidt, S. (2009) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015108 · Cited by 1,125
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L.-S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., et al. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456 · Cited by 700
Moery, E., & Calin-Jageman, R. J. (2016) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550616639649 · Cited by 16
Cited by
Brysbaert, M. (2019) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.72 · Cited by 996
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
Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework
Holtom, B., Baruch, Y., Aguinis, H., & A Ballinger, G. (2022) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/00187267211070769 · Cited by 380
Moshontz, H., Campbell, L., Ebersole, C. R., IJzerman, H., Urry, H. L., Forscher, P. S., Grahe, J. E., McCarthy, R. J., Musser, E. D., Antfolk, J., et al. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245918797607 · Cited by 377
Self-citationClaesen, A., Gomes, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & Vanpaemel, W. (2021) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.211037 · Cited by 197
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W.
- Venue
- Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-08-10
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 389-402
- ISSN
- 2515-2459 (ISSN-L)
- 2515-2467
- OpenAlex
- W2777631817
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 17.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/2515245918787489
- The paper
- LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489
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.
