| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, , Berlin, Germany;2. Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, , Leeds, UK;3. Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, , Ghent, Belgium;4. Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, , Ghent, Belgium;5. School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, , Tilburg, The Netherlands;6. Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, , Heidelberg, Germany;7. Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, , Bonn, Germany;8. Department of Psychology, University of California at Riverside, , Riverside, CA, USA;9. Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, , Potsdam, Germany;10. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, , Charlottesville, VA, USA;11. Department of Psychology, University of Milano‐Bicocca, , Milan, Italy;12. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, , Chicago, IL, USA;13. Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz–Landau, , Landau, Germany;14. Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, , Utrecht, The Netherlands;15. Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, , Greifswald, Germany |
| Abstract: | Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
