An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science. However, because of strong incentives for innovation and weak incentives for confirmation, direct replication is rarely practiced or published. The Reproducibility Project is an open, large-scale, collaborative effort to systematically examine the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. So far, 72 volunteer researchers from 41 institutions have organized to openly and transparently replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals in 2008. Multiple methods will be used to evaluate the findings, calculate an empirical rate of replication, and investigate factors that predict reproducibility. Whatever the result, a better understanding of reproducibility will ultimately improve confidence in scientific methodology and findings

Woran erkenne ich eine erfolgreiche Laufbahn? Ein qualitativer Ansatz zur Definition von Laufbahnerfolg bei Wissenschaftlern

Um erfolgreiche Laufbahnen von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern1 besser planen zu können, müssen Kriterien für den Erfolg einer Laufbahn identifiziert werden. Kriterien für den Erfolg einer Laufbahn aus der Wirtschaft (z. B. Gehalt), sind nicht ohne Einschränkungen auf den Laufbahnerfolg von Wissenschaftlern übertragbar. Ein zen- trales Ziel dieser Studie ist es, den Laufbahnerfolg von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern zu konzeptualisieren und die Bedeutung von Laufbahnerfolg genau- er zu untersuchen. 67 Professoren und Post-Doktoranden wurden zu ihrer persönlichen Definition von Laufbahnerfolg interviewt. Die Antworten wurden mit einem deduk- tiv-induktiv entwickelten Kategoriensystem ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse2 zeigen, dass insgesamt deutlich häufiger subjektive als objektive Laufbahnerfolgskriterien genannt wurden und Professoren, Post-Doktoranden sowie Frauen und Männer hinsichtlich der von ihnen genannten Kriterien weitgehend übereinstimmen

LMX differentiation is good for some and bad for others: A multilevel analysis of effects of LMX differentiation in innovation teams

Based on economizing resources (e.g., time, energy), leaders tend to develop different quality dyadic relationships (i.e., LMX, leader-member exchange differentiation) with different team members, which has several divergent consequences for team effectiveness and team performance. While initial findings indicate that LMX differentiation divides the team, where the high-quality relationship group (in-group) benefits from receiving the resources of the leader while the lower-quality relationship group (out-group) suffers from the resource constraints, this study focuses on how LMX differentiation is related to personal initiative, helpfulness, and proactive meeting interaction depending on group membership. According to a sample of 50 videotaped innovation team meetings (273 members, 50 leaders), the multilevel results supported the moderating role of group membership on the relationship between LMX differentiation and proactive behavior—whereas this relationship is negative for the out-group (apart from personal initiative, which was non-significantly related to LMX differentiation for the out-group), in-groups’ proactive behavior increases as LMX differentiation increases

Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"

Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted

An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science. However, because of strong incentives for innovation and weak incentives for confirmation, direct replication is rarely practiced or published. The Reproducibility Project is an open, large-scale, collaborative effort to systematically examine the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. So far, 72 volunteer researchers from 41 institutions have organized to openly and transparently replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals in 2008. Multiple methods will be used to evaluate the findings, calculate an empirical rate of replication, and investigate factors that predict reproducibility. Whatever the result, a better understanding of reproducibility will ultimately improve confidence in scientific methodology and findings

Reproducibility Project: Psychology

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