After more than a decade of crisis replication in Psychological Science, different projects are being pursued to estimate the reproducibility rate of studies in various fields ranging from biology to medicine (surprisingly, sociology have been largely absent in that debate, though new effort had recently emerged, see Freese & Peterson, 2017). Even in economy, the tendency to replicate has started with only around half of the studies being replicated (see Chang & Li, 2015). This is concerning since even among scientists, only 52% considered there is a serious crisis (Baker, 2016) leading to wonder whether people differ on their definition of scientific crisis or if a non-trivial part of scientists and professors are just not following the dynamic of their respective fields.
In an effort to extend the replication project to other disciplines, Florian Cova and 20 research teams across 8 countries (which I had the pleasure of being part of), successfully replicated about 70% of 40 Experimental Philosophy (x-phi) studies (osf.io/dvkpr). The criteria to assess a successful replication were a significant replicated study (p < .05), subjective assessment of the replicating team (considering study designs, methodological details, 95% CIs, etc.) and comparison of the original and replicated effect sizes.