A project aims to replicate a year’s worth of studies in three psychology journals. It’s not an attack, but a bid to gauge the reproducibility of published research.

In summer 2015, Professor Neil Martin, a psychologist at Regent's University London, and Richard Clarke, a research degree student at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, reviewed the ...

The tendency of scientific journals to prefer to publish positive and original research contributes to the replication crisis. Researchers have investigated 1,151 psychology journals and found ...

Researchers re-did 100 published psychology studies, and many did not check out. These are three of the studies, and some possible explanations for why they couldn’t be replicated.

A huge, collaborative research project attempted to recreate 100 studies that were recently published in major psychology journals, and it found that only 39 of those studies’ results could be ...

Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.

A 2008 study, which found that the research in six major psychology journals only rarely examined people outside the West, wryly proposed that a top journal rename itself the "Journal of the ...

To examine racial representation in psychological research, Roberts and his Stanford research team—Carmelle Bareket-Shavit, Forrest A. Dollins, Peter D. Goldie, and Elizabeth Mortenson—looked at more ...

Scientists Replicated 100 Psychology Studies, and Fewer Than Half Got the Same Results The massive project shows that reproducibility problems plague even top scientific journals ...

So Motyl and Skitka also set out to compare papers in four major psychology journals published in 2003 and 2004 with the same number of studies published 10 years later, in 2013 and 2014.