In case you missed it, there have been some updates to last year's news about the replicability of psychological science. In this space last year, I blogged about the reproducibility project, which had reported that fewer than half (47%) of the psychology studies they attempted to replicate actually replicated. You can read my post for students here and you can read about the original study here.
Very recently, an independent set of researchers (Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson) published an open letter in the journal Science, outlining three major problems they had with the reproducibility project, and arguing that the project underestimated the true reproducibility of psychological science. Their view is more optimistic. You can read that open letter here.
A couple of days after their letter came out one of the authors of the original reproducibility project (Nosek) submitted a rebuttal to at least one of the critiquesYou can read that here.
Then a day after that, the Gilbert team addressed the Nosek team's argument. You can read that one here.
Are you keeping track? Suffice it to say that the debate on how to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science studies is lively and dynamic! If you teach research methods to undergraduates, you might find the discussion difficult to summarize for students with little experience with the statistical issues raised in this discussion. What do you think? Have you got any ideas about how to discuss these issues with your students? Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.