Minimal replicability, generalizability, and scientific advances in psychological science.

Abstract

With the growing number of fraudulent and nonreplicable reports in psychological science, many question the replicability of experiments performed in laboratories worldwide. The focus of Asendorpf and colleagues is on research practices that investigators may be using to increase the likelihood of publication while unknowingly undermining replicability. We laud them for thoughtful intentions and extend their recommendations by focusing on two additional domains: the structure of psychological science and the need to distinguish between minimal replicability and generalizability. The former represents a methodological/statistical problem, whereas the latter represents a theoretical opportunity.