Here, I evaluate two potential target rates, the ‘optimal’ replication rate and the ‘expected’ replication rate, and I call for an educational intervention to better appreciate their limitations. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout Tyner, A. Nature 652, 143–150 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y (2026).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Rubin, M. Trial Error https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4 (2023). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Basic Books, 1962).
Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rh9cu_v1 (2026). Science 351, 1433–1436 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091 (2016). Behav. 2, 637–644 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z (2018).
Open Sci. 13, 250377 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250377 (2026). USA 112, 15343–15347 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112 (2015). Gordon, M., Viganola, D., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M. & Pfeiffer, T.
PLoS ONE 16, e0248780 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248780 (2021). Preprint at MetaArXiv https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/vgyed_v1 (2026). Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK The author declares no competing interests.
Nature Human Behaviour thanks Elizabeth Tipton for their contribution to the peer review of this work. There is no clear target for replication rates. Nat Hum Behav (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02602-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02602-5
Extract — continue reading at the source.
