title: Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science".
abstract: A paper from the Open Science Collaboration (Research Articles, 28 August 2015, aac4716) attempting to replicate 100 published studies suggests that the reproducibility of psychological science is surprisingly low. We show that this article contains three statistical errors and provides no support for such a conclusion. Indeed, the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.
authors.affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. gilbert@wjh.harvard.edu.
authors.forename: Daniel T
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: Gilbert
authors.affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
authors.forename: Gary
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: King
authors.affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pettigrew
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
authors.forename: Timothy D
authors.initials: TD
authors.lastname: Wilson
mesh_terms: D035841:Behavioral Research; D011584:Psychology; D011643:Publishing; D012106:Research