{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026870389884088516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008429926238145416, 'mean_word_length': 5.37248322147651, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science

Much of science, including psychology, consists of eliciting, measuring, and documenting effects. In psychology, these effects are used to test and support theories about how the mind works or why people behave the way they do. Yet, for several reasons, the first report of an effect in the published literature rarely provides enough evidence to draw firm conclusions about the actual size of the effect. First, the sample sizes typically used in psychology studies are not large enough to measure an effect with precision (Marszalek, Barber, Kohlhart, & Holmes, 2012). Second, scientific publishing favors statistically significant, novel results over inconclusive or negative ones (Fanelli, 2012). If discrepant results rarely enter the literature, then published studies will, on average, overestimate the true size of the effects they report. And third, just by chance, some published studies will be false positives (Ioannidis, 2005). Uncertainty about the true size of important effects hampers psychological theorizing. Moreover, single studies provide little evidence for the robustness of an effect across the population to which it is assumed to generalize. This issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science includes the first example of a new type of journal article, one designed to provide a more definitive measure of the size and reliability of important effects: the Registered Replication Report (RRR; see Simons & Holcombe, 2014). RRRs compile a set of studies from a variety of laboratories that all followed an identical, vetted protocol designed to reproduce the original method and finding as closely as possible. By combining the resources of multiple labs, RRRs provide the ingredients for a meta-analysis that can authoritatively establish the size and reliability of an effect.