Response to Uli Schimmack’s blog post
In response to Uli Schimmack’s December 25, 2014 blog post on our research:
This post is a good example of why peer review is essential to our science. Unlike published articles, un-reviewed blog posts do not need to include appropriate reviews of the prior literature, yet a publication on this issue would not have made it past review without acknowledging our published direct replication of these studies (which included a reported failure to replicate); our finding of a moderator of the previously published effect—which provides some indication as to why the effect emerged so strongly in those first two studies (also see here); or any of our more recent blog posts on this issue, such as this one, where we report results from every data point collected on this issue (total N = 633, odds ratio = 1.67, p = .032); or this one, where we explain in detail how we have responded openly to all questions raised about this research. Although these more recent reports may not be relevant to the question of whether our initial paper should have been published in Psych Science, they are certainly relevant to the central issue of this post: how replicable the reported effect is.