Replication studies in the Netherlands:Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities

Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes

Replicating a Rembrandt Study

'Replicating a Rembrandt Study' is part of the larger 'Epistemic progress in the University'. The purpose of this subproject is to explore the possibilities and limitations of replication in the humanities by aiming to execute a replication study within the field of art history. The study to be replicated concerns the attribution of two portraits of the young Rembrandt that are part of the collections of, respectively, the Mauritshuis in The Hague and the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg

Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities

Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learnt about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities, although it is often argued that replication has no place there. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes