Unconf - What is worth replicating?
Date created: | Last Updated:
: DOI | ARK
Creating DOI. Please wait...
Description: Given that most research is original, and we have limited resources available for replication, we need guidelines for study selection in replication research. In this session, I want to discuss what makes a finding worth replicating. What are important indicators of a finding’s replication value? Can it be evaluated the same way across fields, or do different fields have different evaluation criteria? Can researchers agree on what the replication value of a study is, or is it largely a subjective opinion? Is it possible to estimate the replication value of a study through quantitative indicators, or should it be an exclusively qualitative evaluation? I also want to learn more about the ways in which researchers are currently going about selecting studies for replication. What flags a study as replication-worthy to begin with? Are multiple candidate studies considered before one is selected? If so, how is one candidate chosen over the others?