Blog
Insights, commentary, and updates from the replication community.
What We Learned from Trying to Reproduce Psychological Science
Over the past two years, I4R has collaborated with Psychological Science, a leading journal in psychology, on a large reproducibility project. 67 independent teams completed reproduction reports for 64 articles published in the journal in 2024 and 2025. That covers about 44% of the 146 eligible articles from those two years. Teams followed a standardized protocol specified by I4R. They documented data and code availability, computational reproducibility, coding errors, prevalence of preregistration, deviations from preregistered plans, and whether those deviations were acknowledged. Here is what we learned.
September 25, 2026 · Abel Brodeur, Ghina Abdul Baki, Luna Fazio
How can we link publications to replications and generalizations? Improving the findability of replications and retractions
Science is supposed to be a self-correcting system. But how well can it correct itself if we do not know which studies have subsequently been replicated, reproduced, generalized—or failed to replicate?
September 24, 2026 · Josefina Weinerova, Jan Marcus, Rene Bekkers
I4R Finally Has a Newsletter!
September 18, 2026 · Ghina Abdul Baki
When Replication Packages Reveal Too Much: Personally Identifiable Information in the Social Sciences
September 5, 2026 · Abel Brodeur and David Valenta
What Would It Cost to Remove Direct PII from Public Replication Packages?
September 4, 2026 · Abel Brodeur and David Valenta
Not Wrong: The Replication Crisis is a Metatheory Crisis?
August 27, 2026 · Nate Breznau
The Correlated Referee
If every journal (or any committee that makes a decision) screens work with the same AI, the reviewers stop being independent, and independence was the point.
August 24, 2026 · Ghina Abdul Baki
Coding Inconsistencies and Their Impact
What is the impact of a coding discrepancy?
August 20, 2026 · Derek Mikola