Mark J. Brandt

TL;DR: A large-scale assessment suggests that experimental reproducibility in psychology leaves a lot to be desired, and correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

TL;DR: The authors compared variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants and found that the results of these experiments are more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

TL;DR: This paper conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings, and found that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the task were administered in lab versus online.

TL;DR: This article developed a replication recipe to facilitate close and convincing replication attempts, outlining standard criteria for a convincing close replication, including faithfully recreating the original study while keeping track of differences, achieving high statistical power, checking the study's assumptions in new contexts, and pre-registering the study.