To recap the reproducibility discussions on this blog in the last 12 months I checked what readers clicked on most. Here are the three top pieces on the Political Science Replication blog in 2014.
The three top pieces on the this blog in 2014 reflect recent movements such as criticism of replication, a lack of agreement on key terms, and the strive to publish replication studies.
“Replication Bullying:” Who replicates the replicators?
This article was read the most in 2014. It reported about an original author whose study failed to replicate in a special issue in Social Psychology. The Cambridge scholar felt treated unfairly by the “data detectives” because she was not allowed to respond in a detailed comment on the replicators’ work. The debate touched on important issues – after a big push for more transparency we need to discuss how to do replication right, and how to remain professional and fair in our judgement of original authors and their work.
Defining key terms
Is there a difference between replication, reproduction, and re-analysis?
This short piece from 2013 quotes experts and gives definitions of key terms in the replication debate. The fact that it was read by so many people reflects the ongoing problem that there is still no agreed definition of “replication” out there that is accepted by social scientists. Each field – or ideally we should take an interdisciplinary appraoch – should try to define the key terms so that we know what we are talking about.
Publishing your replication
Guest post: How to persuade journals to accept your replication paper
This was an exciting piece by two graduate students who described how their replication study was published after being assigned the project in class. Having so many clicks, this shows that many students and scholars want to learn how to publish replication work. The main incentive for doing replication studies is to get published – now more journals need to acknowledge that replications are valuable.