↓ Skip to main content

Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 300)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
132 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology
Published in
BMC Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0134-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

James C. Coyne

Abstract

Replication initiatives in psychology continue to gather considerable attention from far outside the field, as well as controversy from within. Some accomplishments of these initiatives are noted, but this article focuses on why they do not provide a general solution for what ails psychology. There are inherent limitations to mass replications ever being conducted in many areas of psychology, both in terms of their practicality and their prospects for improving the science. Unnecessary compromises were built into the ground rules for design and publication of the Open Science Collaboration: Psychology that undermine its effectiveness. Some ground rules could actually be flipped into guidance for how not to conduct replications. Greater adherence to best publication practices, transparency in the design and publishing of research, strengthening of independent post-publication peer review and firmer enforcement of rules about data sharing and declarations of conflict of interest would make many replications unnecessary. Yet, it has been difficult to move beyond simple endorsement of these measures to consistent implementation. Given the strong institutional support for questionable publication practices, progress will depend on effective individual and collective use of social media to expose lapses and demand reform. Some recent incidents highlight the necessity of this.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 132 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Norway 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 50%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Unspecified 9 9%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#151,721
of 13,478,330 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#14
of 300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,841
of 268,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,478,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 268,221 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them