[H/T to Retraction Watch for the material in this post] This past week, the journal Science published a study by Dan Gilbert, Gary King and others refuting the claims of Brian Nosek and the Reproducibility Project Psychology (RPP).  The RPP study replicated 100 experiments in psychology and found that over half could not be replicated.  Gilbert, King and associates reviewed the evidence behind that study and found it did not support the RPP’s pessimistic conclusions.  But that is only the beginning of the story.  In the days following, there have been numerous internet articles examining the two studies, trying to determine whether there is a replicability crisis in psychology or not.  It turns out that things are not so clear cut, though it appears the original claims of the RPP overstated the replication failure rate.  The following articles are a good sampling of this debate:  A review of the studies is given here. An article that features a response by Nosek of the RPP is given here.  An article that puts the replicability debate into a larger context of a methodological/epistemogological struggle within Psychology is given here.  And an article that argues everybody is missing the point is given here. Happy reading!