A 2015 report by the "Open Science Collaboration," called the "Reproducibility Project," found that less than 40 out of a sample of 100 psychology papers in leading journals held up when retested by an independent team. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.2.full fights back, claiming that report "contains three statistical errors and provides no support for such a conclusion. Indeed, the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.3.full returns fire, claiming that criticism's "very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted." Are we having fun yet? -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)