[From an article in Retraction Watch] “Scientists have been abuzz over a report in last week’s Science questioning the results of a recent landmark effort to replicate 100 published studies in top psychology journals. The critique of this effort – which suggested the authors couldn’t replicate most of the research because they didn’t adhere closely enough to the original studies – was debated in many outlets, including Nature, The New York Times, and Wired. Below, two of the authors of the original reproducibility project —Brian Nosek and Elizabeth Gilbert – use the example of one replicated study to show why it is important to describe accurately the nature of a study in order to assess whether the differences from the original should be considered consequential.”  To read more, click here.