↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Overview of attention for article published in Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 40,489)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
706 Mendeley
citeulike
15 CiteULike
Title
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Published in
Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.aac4716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Open Science Collaboration, , , Open Science Collaboration,, Nosek, Brian A., Aarts, Alexander A., Anderson, Christopher J., Anderson, Joanna E., Kappes, Heather Barry, Open Science Collaboration,

Abstract

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,913 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 706 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 25 4%
Germany 14 2%
United Kingdom 8 1%
Netherlands 6 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
France 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Other 23 3%
Unknown 612 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 201 28%
Researcher 122 17%
Student > Master 101 14%
Student > Bachelor 94 13%
Professor 48 7%
Other 140 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 359 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 11%
Social Sciences 66 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 59 8%
Neuroscience 24 3%
Other 121 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3189. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#63
of 7,932,348 outputs
Outputs from Science
#4
of 40,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2
of 230,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#1
of 722 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,932,348 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 40,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 722 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.