Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015¶
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., et al. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Primes¶
- Reproducibility & Replicability
- Subsequent methodological work extended the findings: (a) Camerer et al. 2016 (experimental economics, ~60% replication), 2018 (social-science-broad, ~62% replication)
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract confirms 62% (13 of 21) replication for Nature/Science social-science studies; it says nothing about the Camerer 2016 economics study.
“We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 ... We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies”
- Subsequent methodological work extended the findings: (a) Camerer et al. 2016 (experimental economics, ~60% replication), 2018 (social-science-broad, ~62% replication)
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d29b74c31f1b · see in the full table