OSF
open access
Underestimating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences: an audit of six surprising SCORE replication failures.
The Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) project recently published a large-scale replication project within the social and behavioural sciences. The authors replicated only 151 of 274 (55%) claims, a finding covered by major outlets such as the New York Times and Forbes. H
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Underestimating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences: an audit of six surprising SCORE replication failures.#1441908
- Replication Studies: Not Just a Copy#1011875
- Researchers’ Predicting Replicability in the Human Sciences#672320
- Researchers’ Predicting Replicability in the Human Sciences#444251
- Tactics of Scientific Research#1289094
Record · ID 1441874
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive