
Many issues complicate efforts to replicate studies, including concerns about models. Hundreds of papers published over the last sixty years make it clear that the models underlying the conventional statistical methods that are routinely taught and used can lead to low power, inflated false positive rates and inaccurate confidence intervals. In this chapter, we summarize these issues and how they affect replication assessment. We conclude that instead of trying to replicate poorly characterized effects, our efforts would be better spent on developing and discussing more detailed models.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
