@misc{AndersonBahnikBarnettCowanetal.2016,
  author    = {Anderson, Christopher J. and Bahnik, Stepan and Barnett-Cowan, Michael and Bosco, Frank A. and Chandler, Jesse and Chartier, Christopher R. and Cheung, Felix and Christopherson, Cody D. and Cordes, Andreas and Cremata, Edward J. and Della Penna, Nicolas and Estel, Vivien and Fedor, Anna and Fitneva, Stanka A. and Frank, Michael C. and Grange, James A. and Hartshorne, Joshua K. and Hasselman, Fred and Henninger, Felix and van der Hulst, Marije and Jonas, Kai J. and Lai, Calvin K. and Levitan, Carmel A. and Miller, Jeremy K. and Moore, Katherine S. and Meixner, Johannes M. and Munafo, Marcus R. and Neijenhuijs, Koen I. and Nilsonne, Gustav and Nosek, Brian A. and Plessow, Franziska and Prenoveau, Jason M. and Ricker, Ashley A. and Schmidt, Kathleen and Spies, Jeffrey R. and Stieger, Stefan and Strohminger, Nina and Sullivan, Gavin B. and van Aert, Robbie C. M. and van Assen, Marcel A. L. M. and Vanpaemel, Wolf and Vianello, Michelangelo and Voracek, Martin and Zuni, Kellylynn},
  title     = {Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"},
  series = {Science},
  volume    = {351},
  journal   = {Science},
  publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0036-8075},
  doi       = {10.1126/science.aad9163},
  pages     = {1162 -- 1165},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.},
  language  = {en}
}