Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science

Begley C. G. Ellis L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533.

Bem D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.

Bower B. (2012). The hot and the cold of priming. Science News, 181, 26.

Carpenter S. (2012). Psychology’s bold initiative. Science, 335, 1558–1560.

Galak J. LeBoeuf R. A. Nelson L. D. Simmons J. P. (in press). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Giner-Sorolla R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571.

Ioannidis J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.

Ioannidis J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 645–654.

John L. K. Loewenstein G. Prelec D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.

Makel M. Plucker J. Hegarty B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542.

Masicampo E. J. Lalande D. R. (in press). A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 643–644.

Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660.

Osherovich L. (2011). Hedging against academic risk. Science-Business eXchange, 4(15). doi:10.1038/scibx.2011.416.

Pashler H. Harris C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.

Prinz F. Schlange T. Asadullah K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712–713.

Rosenthal R. (1979). An introduction to the file drawer problem. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.

Simmons J. P. Nelson L. D. Simonsohn U. (2011). False–positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.

Simonsohn U. (2012). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2114571

Stroebe W. Postmes T. Spears R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.

Wagenmakers E. J. Wetzels R. Borsboom D. van der Maas H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432.

Wicherts J. M. Bakker M. Molenaar D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6, e26828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

Wicherts J. M. Borsboom D. Kats J. Molenaar D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726–728.

Yong E. (2012). A failed replication attempt draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor. Discover Magazine. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-barghpsychology-study-doyen/