The Power-Corrected H-Index

I was going to write this blog post eventually, but the online first publication of Radosic and Diener’s (2021) article “Citation Metrics in Psychological Science” provided a good opportunity to do so now.

Radosic and Diener’s (2021) article’s main purpose was to “provide norms to help evaluate the citation counts of psychological scientists” (p. 1). The authors also specify the purpose of these evaluations. “Citation metrics are one source of information that can be used in hiring, promotion, awards, and funding, and our goal is to help these evaluations” (p. 1).

The authors caution readers that they are agnostic about the validity of citation counts as a measure of good science. “The merits and demerits of citation counts are beyond the scope of the current article” (p. 8). Yet, they suggest that “there is much to recommend citation numbers in evaluating scholarly records” (p. 11).

At the same time, they list some potential limitations of using citation metrics to evaluate researchers.

1. Articles that developed a scale can have high citation counts. For example, Ed Diener has over 71,000 citations. His most cited article is the 1985 article with his Satisfaction with Life Scale. With 12,000 citations, it accounts for 17% of his citations. The fact that articles that published a measure have such high citation counts reflects a problem in psychological science. Researchers continue to use the first measure that was developed for a new construct (e.g., Rosenberg’s 1965 self-esteem scale) instead of improving measurement which would lead to citations of newer articles. So, the high citation counts of articles with scales is a problem, but it is only a problem if citation counts are used as a metric. A better metric is the H-Index that takes number of publications and citations into account. Ed Diener also has a very high H-Index of 108 publications with 108 or more citations. His scale article is only of these articles. Thus, scale development articles are not a major problem.

2. Review articles are cited more heavily than original research articles. Once more, Ed Diener is a good example. His second and third most cited articles are the 1984 and the co-authored 1999 Psychological Bulletin review articles on subjective well-being that together account for another 9,000 citations (13%). However, even review articles are not a problem. First, they also are unlikely to have an undue influence on the H-Index and second it is possible to exclude review articles and to compute metrics only for empirical articles. Web of Science makes this very easy. In WebofScience 361 out of Diener’s 469 publications are listed as articles. The others are listed as reviews, book chapters, or meeting abstracts. With a click of a button, we can produce the citation metrics only for the 361 articles. The H-Index drops from 108 to 102. Careful hand-selection of articles is unlikely to change this.

3. Finally, Radosic and Diener (2021) mention large-scale collaborations as a problem. For example, one of the most important research projects in psychological science in the last decade was the Reproducibility Project that examined the replicability of psychological science with 100 replication studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). This project required a major effort by many researchers. Participation earned researchers over 2,000 citations in just five years and the article is likely to be the most cited article for many of the collaborators. I do not see this as a problem because large-scale collaborations are important and can produce results that no single lab can produce. Thus, high citation counts provide a good incentive to engage in these collaborations.

To conclude, Radosic and Diener’s article provides norms for a citation counts that can and will be used to evaluate psychological scientists. However, the article sidesteps the main question about the use of citation metrics, namely (a) what criteria should be used to evaluate scientists and (b) are citation metrics valid indicators of these criteria. In short, the article is just another example that psychologists develop and promote measures without examining their construct validity (Schimmack, 2021).

What is a good scientists?

I didn’t do an online study to examine the ideal prototype of a scientist, so I have to rely on my own image of a good scientist. A key criterion is to search for some objectively verifiable information that can inform our understanding of the world, or in psychology ourselves; that is, humans affect, behavior, and cognition – the ABC of psychology. The second criterion elaborates the term objective. Scientists use methods that produce the same results independent of the user of the methods. That is, studies should be reproducible and results should be replicable within the margins of error. Third, the research question should have some significance beyond the personal interests of a scientist. This is of course a tricky criterion, but research that solves major problems like finding a vaccine for Covid-19 is more valuable and more likely to receive citations than research on the liking of cats versus dogs (I know, this is the most controversial statement I am making; go cats!). The problem is that not everybody can do research that is equally important to a large number of people. Once more Ed Diener is a good example. In the 1980s, he decided to study human happiness, which was not a major topic in psychology. Ed Diener’s high H-Index reflects his choice of a topic that is of interest to pretty much everybody. In contrast, research on stigma of minority groups is not of interest to a large group of people and unlikely to attract the same amount of attention. Thus, a blind focus on citation metrics is likely to lead to research on general topics and avoid research that applies research to specific problems. The problem is clearly visible in research on prejudice, where the past 20 years have produced hundreds of studies with button-press tasks by White researchers with White participants that gobbled up funding that could have been used for BIBOC researchers to study the actual issues in BIPOC populations. In short, relevance and significance of research is very difficult to evaluate, but it is unlikely to be reflected in citation metrics. Thus, a danger is that metrics are being used because they are easy to measure and relevance is not being used because it is harder to measure.

Do Citation Metrics Reward Good or Bad Research?

The main justification for the use of citation metrics is the hypothesis that the wisdom of crowds will lead to more citations of high quality work.

“The argument in favor of personal judgments overlooks the fact that citation counts are also based on judgments by scholars. In the case of citation counts, however, those judgments are broadly derived from the whole scholarly community and are weighted by the scholars who are publishing about the topic of the cited publications. Thus, there is much to recommend citation
numbers in evaluating scholarly records.” (Radosic & Diener, 2021, p. 8).

This statement is out of touch with discussions about psychological science over the past decade in the wake of the replication crisis (see Schimmack, 2020, for a review; I have to cite myself to get up my citation metrics. LOL). In order to get published and cited, researchers of original research articles in psychological science need statistically significant p-values. The problem is that it can be difficult to find significant results when novel hypotheses are false or effect sizes are small. Given the pressure to publish in order to rise in the H-Index rankings, psychologists have learned to use a number of statistical tricks to get significant results in the absence of strong evidence in the data. These tricks are known as questionable research practices, but most researchers think they are acceptable (John et al., 2012). However, these practices undermine the value of significance testing and published results may be false positives or difficult to replicate, and do not add to the progress of science. Thus, citation metrics may have the negative consequence to pressure scientists into using bad practices and to reward scientists who publish more false results just because they publish more.

Meta-psychologists have produced strong evidence that the use of these practices was widespread and accounts for the majority of replication failures that occurred over the past decade.

Motyl et al. (2017) collected focal test statistics from a representative sample of articles in social psychology. I analyzed their data using z-curve.2.0 (Brunner & Schimmack, 2020; Bartos & Schimmack, 2021). Figure 1 shows the distribution of the test-statistics after converting them into absolute z-scores, where higher values show a higher signal/noise (effect size / sampling error) ratio. A z-score of 1.96 is needed to claim a discovery with p < .05 (two-sided). Consistent with publication practices since the 1960s, most focal hypothesis tests confirm predictions (Sterling, 1959). The observed discovery rate is 90% and even higher if marginally significant results are included (z > 1.65). This high success rate is not something to celebrate. Even I could win all marathons if I use a short-cut and run only 5km. The problem with this high success rate is clearly visible when we fit a model to the distribution of the significant z-scores and extrapolate the distribution of z-scores that are not significant (the blue curve in the figure). Based on this distribution, the significant results are only 19% of all tests, indicating that many more non-significant results are expected than observed. The discrepancy between the observed and estimated discovery rate provides some indication of the use of questionable research practices. Moreover, the estimated discovery rate shows how much statistical power studies have to produce significant results without questionable research practices. The results confirm suspicions that power in social psychology is abysmally low (Cohen, 1961; Tversky & Kahneman, 1971).

The use of questionable practices makes it possible that citation metrics may be invalid. When everybody in a research field uses p < .05 as a criterion to evaluate manuscripts and these p-values are obtained with questionable research practices, the system will reward researchers how use the most questionable methods to produce more questionable results than their peers. In other words, citation metrics are no longer a valid criterion of research quality. Instead, bad research is selected and rewarded (Smaldino & McElreath, 2016). However, it is also possible that implicit knowledge helps researchers to focus on robust results and that questionable research practices are not rewarded. For example, prediction markets suggest that it is fairly easy to spot shoddy research and to predict replication failures (Dreber et al., 2015). Thus, we cannot assume that citation metrics are valid or invalid. Instead, citation metrics – like all measures – require a program of construct validation.

Do Citation Metrics Take Statistical Power Into Account?

A few days ago, I published the first results of an ongoing research project that examines the relationship between researchers’ citation metrics and estimates of the average power of their studies based on z-curve analyses like the one shown in Figure 1 (see Schimmack, 2021, for details). The key finding is that there is no statistically or practically significant relationship between researchers H-Index and the average power of their studies. Thus, researchers who invest a lot of resources in their studies to produce results with a low false positive risk and high replicability are not cited more than researchers who flood journals with low powered studies that produce questionable results that are difficult to replicate.

These results show a major problem of citation metrics. Although methodologists have warned against underpowered studies, researchers have continued to use underpowered studies because they can use questionable practices to produce the desired outcome. This strategy is beneficial for scientists and their career, but hurts the larger goal of science to produce a credible body of knowledge. This does not mean that we need to abandon citation metrics altogether, but it must be complemented with other information that reflects the quality of researchers data.

The Power-Corrected H-Index

In my 2020 review article, I proposed to weight the H-Index by estimates of researchers’ replicability. For my illustration, I used the estimated replication rate, which is the average power of significant tests, p < .05 (Brunner & Schimmack, 2020). One advantage of the ERR is that it is highly reliable. The reliability of the ERRs for 300 social psychologists is .90. However, the ERR has some limitations. First, it predicts replication outcomes under the unrealistic assumption that psychological studies can be replicated exactly. However, it has been pointed out that this often impossible, especially in social psychology (Strobe & Strack, 2014). As a result, ERR predictions are overly optimistic and overestimate the success rate of actual replication studies (Bartos & Schimmack, 2021). In contrast, EDR estimates are much more in line with actual replication outcomes because effect sizes in replication studies can regress towards the mean. For example, Figure 1 shows an EDR of 19% for social psychology and the actual success rate (if we can call it that) for social psychology was 25% in the reproducibility project (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Another advantage of the EDR is that it is sensitive to questionable research practices that tend to produce an abundance of p-values that are just significant. Thus, the EDR more strongly punishes researchers for using these undesirable practices. The main limitation of the EDR is that it is less reliable than the ERR. The reliability for 300 social psychologists was only .5. Of course, it is not necessary to chose between ERR and EDR. Just like there are many citation metrics, it is possible to evaluate the pattern of power-corrected metrics using ERR and EDR. I am presenting both values here, but the rankings are sorted by EDR weighted H-Indices.

The H-Index is an absolute number that can range from 0 to infinity. In contrast, power is limited to a range from 5% (with alpha = .05) to 100%. Thus, it makes sense to use power as a weight and to weight the H-index by a researchers EDR. A researcher who published only studies with 100% power has a power-corrected H-Index that is equivalent to the actual H-Index. The average EDR of social psychologists, however, is 35%. Thus, the average H-index is reduced to a third of the unadjusted value.

To illustrate this approach, I am using two researchers with a large H-Index, but different EDRs. One researcher is James J. Gross with an H-Index of 99 in WebofScience. His z-curve plot shows some evidence that questionable research practices were used to report 72% significant results with 50% power. However, the 95%CI around the EDR ranges from 23% to 78% and includes the point estimate. Thus, the evidence for QRPs is weak and not statistically significant. More important, the EDR -corrected H-Index is 90 * .50 = 45.

A different example is provided by Shelly E. Taylor with a similarly high H-Index of 84, but her z-curve plot shows clear evidence that the observed discovery rate is inflated by questionable research practices. Her low EDR reduces the H-Index considerably and results in a PC-H-Index of only 12.6.

Weighing the two researchers’ H-Index by their respective ERR’s, 77 vs. 54, has similar, but less extreme effects in absolute terms, ERR-adjusted H-Indices of 76 vs. 45.

In the sample of 300 social psychologists, the H-Index (r = .74) and the EDR (r = .65) contribute about equal amounts of variance to the power-corrected H-Index. Of course, a different formula could be used to weigh power more or less.

Discussion

Ed Diener is best known for his efforts to measure well-being and to point out that traditional economic indicators of well-being are imperfect. While wealth of countries is a strong predictor of citizens’ average well-being, r ~ .8, income is a poor predictor of individuals’ well-being with countries. However, economists continue to rely on income and GDP because it is more easily quantified and counted than subjective life-evaluations. Ironically, Diener advocates the opposite approach when it comes to measuring research quality. Counting articles and citations is relatively easy and objective, but it may not measure what we really want to measure, namely how much is somebody contributing to the advancement of knowledge. The construct of scientific advancement is probably as difficult to define as well-being, but producing replicable results with reproducible studies is one important criterion of good science. At present, citation metrics fail to track this indicator of research quality. Z-curve analyses of published results make it possible to measure this aspect of good science and I recommend to take it into account when researchers are being evaluated.

However, I do not recommend the use of quantitative information for the evaluation of hiring and promotion decisions. The reward system in science is too biased to reward privileged upper-class, White, US Americans (see APS rising stars lists). That being said, a close examination of published articles can be used to detect and eliminate researchers who severely p-hacked to get their significant results. Open science criteria can also be used to evaluate researchers who are just starting their career.

In conclusion, Radosic and Diener’s (2021) article disappointed me because it sidesteps the fundamental questions about the validity of citation metrics as a criterion for scientific excellence.

Conflict of Interest Statement: At the beginning of my career I was motivated to succeed in psychological science by publishing as many JPSP articles as possible and I made the unhealthy mistake to try to compete with Ed Diener. That didn’t work out for me. Maybe I am just biased against citation metrics because my work is not cited as much as I would like. Alternatively, my disillusionment with the system reflects some real problems with the reward structure in psychological science and helped me to see the light. The goal of science cannot be to have the most articles or the most citations, if these metrics do not really reflect scientific contributions. Chasing indicators is a trap, just like chasing happiness is a trap. Most scientists can hope to make maybe one lasting contribution to the advancement of knowledge. You need to please others to stay in the game, but beyond those minimum requirements to get tenure, personal criteria of success are better than social comparisons for the well-being of science and scientists. The only criterion that is healthy is to maximize statistical power. As Cohen said, less is more and by this criterion psychology is not doing well as more and more research is published with little concern about quality.

Name	EDR.H.Index	ERR.H.Index	H-Index	EDR	ERR
James J. Gross	50	76	99	50	77
John T. Cacioppo	48	70	102	47	69
Richard M. Ryan	46	61	89	52	69
Robert A. Emmons	39	40	46	85	88
Edward L. Deci	36	43	69	52	63
Richard W. Robins	34	40	57	60	70
Jean M. Twenge	33	35	59	56	59
William B. Swann Jr.	32	44	55	59	80
Matthew D. Lieberman	31	54	67	47	80
Roy F. Baumeister	31	53	101	31	52
David Matsumoto	31	33	39	79	85
Carol D. Ryff	31	36	48	64	76
Dacher Keltner	31	44	68	45	64
Michael E. McCullough	30	34	44	69	78
Kipling D. Williams	30	34	44	69	77
Thomas N Bradbury	30	33	48	63	69
Richard J. Davidson	30	55	108	28	51
Phoebe C. Ellsworth	30	33	46	65	72
Mario Mikulincer	30	45	71	42	64
Richard E. Petty	30	47	74	40	64
Paul Rozin	29	49	58	50	84
Lisa Feldman Barrett	29	48	69	42	70
Constantine Sedikides	28	44	63	45	70
Alice H. Eagly	28	43	61	46	71
Susan T. Fiske	28	49	66	42	74
Jim Sidanius	27	30	42	65	72
Samuel D. Gosling	27	33	53	51	62
S. Alexander Haslam	27	40	62	43	64
Carol S. Dweck	26	42	66	39	63
Mahzarin R. Banaji	25	53	68	37	78
Brian A. Nosek	25	46	57	44	81
John F. Dovidio	25	41	66	38	62
Daniel M. Wegner	24	34	52	47	65
Benjamin R. Karney	24	27	37	65	73
Linda J. Skitka	24	26	32	75	82
Jerry Suls	24	43	63	38	68
Steven J. Heine	23	28	37	63	77
Klaus Fiedler	23	28	38	61	74
Jamil Zaki	23	27	35	66	76
Charles M. Judd	23	36	53	43	68
Jonathan B. Freeman	23	24	30	75	81
Shinobu Kitayama	23	32	45	50	71
Norbert Schwarz	22	35	56	40	63
Antony S. R. Manstead	22	37	59	37	62
Patricia G. Devine	21	25	37	58	67
David P. Schmitt	21	23	30	71	77
Craig A. Anderson	21	32	59	36	55
Jeff Greenberg	21	39	73	29	54
Kevin N. Ochsner	21	40	57	37	70
Jens B. Asendorpf	21	28	41	51	69
David M. Amodio	21	23	33	63	70
Bertram Gawronski	21	33	43	48	76
Fritz Strack	20	31	55	37	56
Virgil Zeigler-Hill	20	22	27	74	81
Nalini Ambady	20	32	57	35	56
John A. Bargh	20	35	63	31	55
Arthur Aron	20	36	65	30	56
Mark Snyder	19	38	60	32	63
Adam D. Galinsky	19	33	68	28	49
Tom Pyszczynski	19	33	61	31	54
Barbara L. Fredrickson	19	32	52	36	61
Hazel Rose Markus	19	44	64	29	68
Mark Schaller	18	26	43	43	61
Philip E. Tetlock	18	33	45	41	73
Anthony G. Greenwald	18	51	61	30	83
Ed Diener	18	69	101	18	68
Cameron Anderson	18	20	27	67	74
Michael Inzlicht	18	28	44	41	63
Barbara A. Mellers	18	25	32	56	78
Margaret S. Clark	18	23	30	59	77
Ethan Kross	18	23	34	52	67
Nyla R. Branscombe	18	32	49	36	65
Jason P. Mitchell	18	30	41	43	73
Ursula Hess	18	28	40	44	71
R. Chris Fraley	18	28	39	45	72
Emily A. Impett	18	19	25	70	76
B. Keith Payne	17	23	30	58	76
Eddie Harmon-Jones	17	43	62	28	70
Wendy Wood	17	27	43	40	62
John T. Jost	17	30	49	35	61
C. Nathan DeWall	17	28	45	38	63
Thomas Gilovich	17	35	50	34	69
Elaine Fox	17	21	27	62	78
Brent W. Roberts	17	45	59	28	77
Harry T. Reis	16	32	43	38	74
Robert B. Cialdini	16	29	51	32	56
Phillip R. Shaver	16	46	65	25	71
Daphna Oyserman	16	25	46	35	54
Russell H. Fazio	16	31	50	32	61
Jordan B. Peterson	16	31	39	41	79
Bernadette Park	16	24	38	42	64
Paul A. M. Van Lange	16	24	38	42	63
Jeffry A. Simpson	16	31	57	28	55
Russell Spears	15	29	52	29	55
A. Janet Tomiyama	15	17	23	65	76
Jan De Houwer	15	40	55	27	72
Samuel L. Gaertner	15	26	42	35	61
Michael Harris Bond	15	35	42	35	84
Agneta H. Fischer	15	21	31	47	69
Delroy L. Paulhus	15	39	47	31	82
Marcel Zeelenberg	14	29	37	39	79
Eli J. Finkel	14	26	45	32	57
Jennifer Crocker	14	32	48	30	67
Steven W. Gangestad	14	20	48	30	41
Michael D. Robinson	14	27	41	35	66
Nicholas Epley	14	19	26	55	72
David M. Buss	14	52	65	22	80
Naomi I. Eisenberger	14	40	51	28	79
Andrew J. Elliot	14	48	71	20	67
Steven J. Sherman	14	37	59	24	62
Christian S. Crandall	14	21	36	39	59
Kathleen D. Vohs	14	23	45	31	51
Jamie Arndt	14	23	45	31	50
John M. Zelenski	14	15	20	69	76
Jessica L. Tracy	14	23	32	43	71
Gordon B. Moskowitz	14	27	47	29	57
Klaus R. Scherer	14	41	52	26	78
Ayelet Fishbach	13	21	36	37	59
Jennifer A. Richeson	13	21	40	33	52
Charles S. Carver	13	52	81	16	64
Leaf van Boven	13	18	27	47	67
Shelley E. Taylor	12	44	84	14	52
Lee Jussim	12	17	24	52	71
Edward R. Hirt	12	17	26	48	65
Shigehiro Oishi	12	32	52	24	61
Richard E. Nisbett	12	30	43	29	69
Kurt Gray	12	15	18	69	81
Stacey Sinclair	12	17	30	41	57
Niall Bolger	12	20	34	36	58
Paula M. Niedenthal	12	22	36	34	61
Eliot R. Smith	12	31	42	29	73
Tobias Greitemeyer	12	21	31	39	67
Rainer Reisenzein	12	14	21	57	69
Rainer Banse	12	19	26	46	72
Galen V. Bodenhausen	12	28	46	26	61
Ozlem Ayduk	12	21	35	34	59
E. Tory. Higgins	12	38	70	17	54
D. S. Moskowitz	12	21	33	36	63
Dale T. Miller	12	25	39	30	64
Jeanne L. Tsai	12	17	25	46	67
Roger Giner-Sorolla	11	18	22	51	80
Edward P. Lemay	11	15	19	59	81
Ulrich Schimmack	11	22	35	32	63
E. Ashby Plant	11	18	36	31	51
Ximena B. Arriaga	11	13	19	58	69
Janice R. Kelly	11	15	22	50	70
Frank D. Fincham	11	35	60	18	59
David Dunning	11	30	43	25	70
Boris Egloff	11	21	37	29	58
Karl Christoph Klauer	11	25	39	27	65
Caryl E. Rusbult	10	19	36	29	54
Tessa V. West	10	12	20	51	59
Jennifer S. Lerner	10	13	22	46	61
Wendi L. Gardner	10	15	24	42	63
Mark P. Zanna	10	30	62	16	48
Michael Ross	10	28	45	22	62
Jonathan Haidt	10	31	43	23	73
Sonja Lyubomirsky	10	22	38	26	59
Sander L. Koole	10	18	35	28	52
Duane T. Wegener	10	16	27	36	60
Marilynn B. Brewer	10	27	44	22	62
Christopher K. Hsee	10	20	31	31	63
Sheena S. Iyengar	10	15	19	50	80
Laurie A. Rudman	10	26	38	25	68
Joanne V. Wood	9	16	26	36	60
Thomas Mussweiler	9	17	39	24	43
Shelly L. Gable	9	17	33	28	50
Felicia Pratto	9	30	40	23	75
Wiebke Bleidorn	9	20	27	34	74
Jeff T. Larsen	9	17	25	36	67
Nicholas O. Rule	9	23	30	30	75
Dirk Wentura	9	20	31	29	64
Klaus Rothermund	9	30	39	23	76
Joris Lammers	9	11	16	56	69
Stephanie A. Fryberg	9	13	19	47	66
Robert S. Wyer	9	30	47	19	63
Mina Cikara	9	14	18	49	80
Tiffany A. Ito	9	14	22	40	64
Joel Cooper	9	14	35	25	39
Joshua Correll	9	14	23	38	62
Peter M. Gollwitzer	9	27	46	19	58
Brad J. Bushman	9	32	51	17	62
Kennon M. Sheldon	9	32	48	18	66
Malte Friese	9	15	26	33	57
Dieter Frey	9	23	39	22	58
Lorne Campbell	9	14	23	37	61
Monica Biernat	8	17	29	29	57
Aaron C. Kay	8	14	28	30	51
Yaacov Schul	8	15	23	36	64
Joseph P. Forgas	8	23	39	21	59
Guido H. E. Gendolla	8	14	30	27	47
Claude M. Steele	8	13	31	26	42
Igor Grossmann	8	15	23	35	66
Paul K. Piff	8	10	16	50	63
Joshua Aronson	8	13	28	28	46
William G. Graziano	8	20	30	26	66
Azim F. Sharif	8	15	22	35	68
Juliane Degner	8	9	12	64	71
Margo J. Monteith	8	18	24	32	77
Timothy D. Wilson	8	28	45	17	63
Kerry Kawakami	8	13	23	33	56
Hilary B. Bergsieker	7	8	11	68	74
Gerald L. Clore	7	18	39	19	45
Phillip Atiba Goff	7	11	18	41	62
Elizabeth W. Dunn	7	17	26	28	64
Bernard A. Nijstad	7	16	31	23	52
Mark J. Landau	7	13	28	25	45
Christopher R. Agnew	7	16	21	33	76
Brandon J. Schmeichel	7	14	30	23	45
Arie W. Kruglanski	7	28	49	14	58
Eric D. Knowles	7	12	18	38	64
Yaacov Trope	7	32	57	12	57
Wendy Berry Mendes	7	14	31	22	44
Jennifer S. Beer	7	14	25	27	54
Nira Liberman	7	29	45	15	65
Penelope Lockwood	7	10	14	48	70
Jeffrey W Sherman	7	21	29	23	71
Geoff MacDonald	7	12	18	37	67
Eva Walther	7	13	19	35	66
Daniel T. Gilbert	7	27	41	16	65
Grainne M. Fitzsimons	6	11	23	28	49
Elizabeth Page-Gould	6	11	16	40	66
Mark J. Brandt	6	12	17	37	70
Ap Dijksterhuis	6	20	37	17	54
James K. McNulty	6	21	33	19	65
Dolores Albarracin	6	18	33	19	56
Maya Tamir	6	19	29	21	64
Jon K. Maner	6	22	43	14	52
Alison L. Chasteen	6	17	25	24	69
Jay J. van Bavel	6	21	30	20	71
William A. Cunningham	6	19	30	20	64
Glenn Adams	6	12	17	35	73
Wilhelm Hofmann	6	22	33	18	66
Ludwin E. Molina	6	7	12	49	61
Lee Ross	6	26	42	14	63
Andrea L. Meltzer	6	9	13	45	72
Jason E. Plaks	6	10	15	39	67
Ara Norenzayan	6	21	34	17	61
Batja Mesquita	6	17	23	25	73
Tanya L. Chartrand	6	9	28	20	33
Toni Schmader	5	18	30	18	61
Abigail A. Scholer	5	9	14	38	62
C. Miguel Brendl	5	10	15	35	68
Emily Balcetis	5	10	15	35	68
Diana I. Tamir	5	9	15	35	62
Nir Halevy	5	13	18	29	72
Alison Ledgerwood	5	8	15	34	54
Yoav Bar-Anan	5	14	18	28	76
Paul W. Eastwick	5	17	24	21	69
Geoffrey L. Cohen	5	13	25	20	50
Yuen J. Huo	5	13	16	31	80
Benoit Monin	5	16	29	17	56
Gabriele Oettingen	5	17	35	14	49
Roland Imhoff	5	15	21	23	73
Mark W. Baldwin	5	8	20	24	41
Ronald S. Friedman	5	8	19	25	44
Shelly Chaiken	5	22	43	11	52
Kristin Laurin	5	9	18	26	51
David A. Pizarro	5	16	23	20	69
Michel Tuan Pham	5	18	27	17	68
Amy J. C. Cuddy	5	17	24	19	72
Gun R. Semin	5	19	30	15	64
Laura A. King	4	19	28	16	68
Yoel Inbar	4	14	20	22	71
Nilanjana Dasgupta	4	12	23	19	52
Kerri L. Johnson	4	13	17	25	76
Roland Neumann	4	10	15	28	67
Richard P. Eibach	4	10	22	19	47
Roland Deutsch	4	16	23	18	71
Michael W. Kraus	4	13	24	17	55
Steven J. Spencer	4	15	34	12	44
Gregory M. Walton	4	13	29	14	44
Ana Guinote	4	9	20	20	47
Sandra L. Murray	4	14	25	16	55
Leif D. Nelson	4	16	25	16	64
Heejung S. Kim	4	14	25	16	55
Elizabeth Levy Paluck	4	10	19	21	55
Jennifer L. Eberhardt	4	11	17	23	62
Carey K. Morewedge	4	15	23	17	65
Lauren J. Human	4	9	13	30	70
Chen-Bo Zhong	4	10	21	18	49
Ziva Kunda	4	15	27	14	56
Geoffrey J. Leonardelli	4	6	13	28	48
Danu Anthony Stinson	4	6	11	33	54
Kentaro Fujita	4	11	18	20	62
Leandre R. Fabrigar	4	14	21	17	67
Melissa J. Ferguson	4	15	22	16	69
Nathaniel M Lambert	3	14	23	15	59
Matthew Feinberg	3	8	12	28	69
Sean M. McCrea	3	8	15	22	54
David A. Lishner	3	8	13	25	63
William von Hippel	3	13	27	12	48
Joseph Cesario	3	9	19	17	45
Martie G. Haselton	3	16	29	11	54
Daniel M. Oppenheimer	3	16	26	12	60
Oscar Ybarra	3	13	24	12	55
Simone Schnall	3	5	16	17	31
Travis Proulx	3	9	14	19	62
Spike W. S. Lee	3	8	12	22	64
Dov Cohen	3	11	24	11	44
Ian McGregor	3	10	24	11	40
Dana R. Carney	3	9	17	15	53
Mark Muraven	3	10	23	11	44
Deborah A. Prentice	3	12	21	12	57
Michael A. Olson	2	11	18	13	63
Susan M. Andersen	2	10	21	11	48
Sarah E. Hill	2	9	17	13	52
Michael A. Zarate	2	4	14	13	31
Lisa K. Libby	2	5	10	18	54
Hans Ijzerman	2	8	18	9	46
James M. Tyler	1	6	8	18	74
Fiona Lee	1	6	10	13	58

References

Open Science Collaboration (OSC). (2015). Estimating the reproducibility
of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1126/science.aac4716

Radosic, N., & Diener, E. (2021). Citation Metrics in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964128

Schimmack, U. (2021). The validation crisis. Meta-psychology. in press

Schimmack, U. (2020). A meta-psychological perspective on the decade of replication failures in social psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 61(4), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000246