LnuOpen (Linnaeus University)
Not a member yet
3576 research outputs found
Sort by
Yttrandefinala stigtoner i tre sydsvenska dialekter och vad de avslöjar om tvåtoppigheten i den sydsvenska tonaccenten
Full text link
Die Küche als Lernort. Die doppelte Räumlichkeit bei Online-Seminaren im Kontext des Fremdsprachenlernens
Full text linkThe value of replications goes beyond replicability and is associated with the value of the research it replicates: Commentary on Isager et al. (2025)
No full textReplications are essential for rigorous credible science yet are still grossly undervalued and very rare. The value of replications is directly tied to the value of the research they aim to replicate, and replications offer many benefits that go far beyond the mere testing of replicability, such as including verifications and error detection, promoting long-term reproducibility of all research outputs, clarifying theory, refining measurement, and testing generalizability. We need far more independent pre-registered well-powered direct replications to strengthen the credibility of scientific findings. Isager et al. (2025)’s aim to define a formula for the value of replications based on over-simplified metrics of citation count and sample size is misaligned, already misunderstood, and may backfire by hindering the pursuit and publication of replications
Replication value as a function of citation impact and sample size: response to commentaries
No full textThe primary goal of our target article (Isager et al., 2025) is to give the research community an example of what a well-justified replication value metric could look like, and to encourage discussion of how replication value could be quantified in practice. Furthermore, in the target article we discuss practical hurdles to quantification and possible practical applications for RVCn and other metrics. As that article proposes a method for how to do research–in this case a method to select which claims in the literature need replication most–it is important to receive criticism, feedback, and viewpoints from a diverse range of authors interested in this topic. We are delighted to read the many thoughtful yet critical commentaries, several of which proposing adjustments or alternatives to the equations we have proposed in the target article. This is very encouraging to see, as our aim with initiating this call in Meta-Psychology was to create an open dialogue in the scientific record. RVCn is an efficient but limited metric. Its limitations should be laid bare, and we fully expect that improved metrics and selection procedures can be created in the future. We hope our target article and these commentaries together will inspire readers to continue the discussion of how to efficiently and transparently select studies for replication. In this rejoinder we will summarize what we see as the major themes touched on in the commentaries, and we will reply to some of the specific proposals and criticisms brought up by different commentary authors
