ArticleJournal of open psychology data2024
The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science.
Article in Journal of open psychology data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Upper Limb Function Using Virtual Reality Technologies in Adults with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review.Neurology international · 2026Review
- dynConfiR: An R package for sequential sampling models of decision confidence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- How Temporal Predictability of Threat and Action Preparation Affect Defensive Freezing Responses.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Novelty, Consistency, Transparency: The Trilemma of Psychological Sciences and its Consequences on Open Science Practices.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
97 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In psychological science, replicability-repeating a study with a new sample achieving consistent results (Parsons et al., 2022)-is critical for affirming the validity of scientific findings. Despite its importance, replication efforts are few and far between in psychological science with many attempts failing to corroborate past findings. This scarcity, compounded by the difficulty in accessing replication data, jeopardizes the efficient allocation of research resources and impedes scientific advancement. Addressing this crucial gap, we present the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.