Linked from

The 66 pages that link to Replication crisis, each with the reason it gives.

• Scientific methodRelated: It exposed limits in research practices used to assess and revise claims.

• Behavioral economicsRelated: Replication debates have prompted scrutiny of influential behavioral effects and their robustness.

• FalsifiabilityRelated: Failed replications expose limits in how strongly research claims were tested and supported.

• ReproducibilityRelated: Its investigations exposed how often published results failed to recur under repeated testing.

• Publication biasRelated: Selective publication can make initial findings appear more consistent and robust than replications show.

• EvidenceRelated: Failed replications expose weaknesses in the reliability of some purported evidence.

• Gene–environment interactionRelated: Several prominent candidate interactions failed to replicate consistently.

• Statistical inferenceRelated: Replication failures expose how study design and inferential practices affect scientific reliability.

• P-valueRelated: Overreliance on significance thresholds contributed to concerns about fragile findings.

• Implicit biasRelated: Replication efforts have challenged the robustness of some reported implicit-bias effects.

• External validityRelated: Replication failures concern robustness, which is related to but distinct from generalizability.

• Multiple comparisons problemRelated: Uncorrected multiplicity can contribute to findings that fail to replicate.

• Daniel KahnemanRelated: It prompted scrutiny of influential psychological findings, including classic judgment experiments.

• Null hypothesisRelated: Overreliance on thresholded null-hypothesis tests has been implicated in fragile published findings.

• ReplicationRelated: Repeated failures across fields made replication a central test of scientific reliability.

• Intergenerational traumaRelated: Small biological studies can yield fragile results that need independent replication.

• PsychologyRelated: Psychology’s replication debates have prompted changes in research practices and evidential standards.

• RetractionRelated: Retractions are one visible, but incomplete, response to broader reliability problems.

• Cognitive biasRelated: Replication attempts have challenged the robustness of some reported bias effects.

• ExperimentRelated: Failed replications expose weaknesses in experimental evidence and research practice.

• Nudge theoryRelated: Unstable behavioral findings can weaken the evidence base for policy nudges.

• Statistical hypothesis testingRelated: Concerns about fragile findings brought testing practices and selective reporting under scrutiny.

• Experimental philosophyRelated: Replication standards matter when experimental results are used to challenge established philosophical assumptions.

• NatureRelated: Debates over high-profile findings have intensified scrutiny of journal incentives and research reliability.

• Scientific misconductRelated: Misconduct can contribute to irreproducible findings, alongside ordinary error and bias.

• Experimental physicsRelated: Replication concerns highlight why experimental methods and uncertainty must be reported transparently.

• Reproducible researchRelated: Replication failures intensified demands for transparent methods and materials.

• Science (journal)Related: The journal’s publication choices intersect with broader concerns about reproducibility.

• Hawthorne effectRelated: Unstable or overstated observation effects illustrate why influential claims need replication.

• Facial feedback hypothesisRelated: Attempts to reproduce the pen-in-mouth result raised doubts about the original evidence.

• Natural scienceRelated: Replication failures prompt scrutiny of how evidence is produced and evaluated.

• Ganzfeld experimentRelated: Repeated, independently controlled trials are needed to establish whether the reported effect is reliable.

• Duhem–Quine thesisRelated: Replication failures raise questions about which methods, assumptions, or target hypotheses a result tests.

• Null hypothesis significance testingRelated: Threshold-driven incentives and fragile findings have featured in debates about failed replications.

• Robert MillikanRelated: The scrutiny of Millikan’s data illustrates how selection and reporting affect trust in results.

• Frequentist inferenceRelated: Misused significance thresholds and low power contributed to failures of reproducibility.

• Stanley MilgramRelated: Later attempts to reproduce Milgram-style findings raised questions about changes in methods and interpretation.

• Academic integrityRelated: It illustrates how weaknesses in research practice can erode confidence in scholarship.

• Science studiesRelated: Replication disputes expose how research methods and institutional incentives affect scientific reliability.

• Solomon AschRelated: Modern replication research has revisited classic social psychology experiments, including conformity studies.

• Decoy effectRelated: Replications have raised questions about how robustly decoy effects appear across settings.

• Dunbar's numberRelated: The estimate's empirical foundations depend on results that must withstand independent tests.

• Extrasensory perceptionRelated: Independent replication tests whether reported ESP effects recur beyond their original experiments.

• Observer-expectancy effectRelated: Uncontrolled expectancy effects can contribute to findings that fail to replicate.

• Scientific communityRelated: Replication failures have prompted debate over incentives, methods, and quality control.

• Statistical hypothesis testRelated: Testing practices, low power, and selective reporting contribute to failures of replication.

• History of psychologyRelated: Recent replication concerns have prompted scrutiny of psychology’s evidence and research practices.

• ParanormalRelated: Reproducibility concerns shape disputes over reported paranormal experiments.

• Pygmalion effectRelated: Replication and methodological scrutiny shape confidence in classic expectancy findings.

• Fringe scienceRelated: Replication failures illustrate why evidence quality can remain contested even inside mainstream research.