Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
I4R Profile picture
I4R
@I4Replication
The Institute for Replication (I4R) works to improve the credibility of science by promoting and conducting reproductions and replications.
Aug 27, 2025 • 25 tweets • 6 min read
#GDRI_rep Update 8a: Major updates coming up over the next few weeks.

1st update: We reproduced "Parent–teacher meetings and student outcomes" some time ago. The paper was then retracted by the editors of the Euro Econ Rev.

Additional studies are connected (see diagram)
🧵 Image As a reminder, our comment published here () showed that (i) randomization never occurred; (ii) irregularities in baseline scores, which for the same students vary systematically in ways that are unique to either the treatment or control group; ...sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Jul 21, 2025 • 10 tweets • 4 min read
We have updates concerning this thread. The original article was retracted by the publisher, the author released a new response, the replicators briefly responded, and the author responded to response.
🧵 We were contacted by the original author mid-June. He requested to release a response as an I4R discussion paper. (He had initially declined our invitation to respond, pointing out his re-analysis published by JPopE as a response.)

ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/i4rdps/2…Image
May 9, 2025 • 20 tweets • 5 min read
A re-analysis of Ciacci's (2024) "Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: Evidence from Sweden" Journal of Population Economics reveals major issues. A year ago, reproducers Adema, Folke, and Rickne found coding errors driving the paper's key results. Let's unpack
⬇️ Image Let’s start with the original study. The author writes (abstract): “This paper leverages the timing of a ban on the purchase of sex to assess its impact on rape offenses. ...
Feb 24, 2025 • 24 tweets • 5 min read
After being alerted about possible misconduct, the I4R are reproducing published papers that use data from a specific NGO (GDRI). This thread releases the first 2 reports and provides more information about the work and responses/statements from authors journals and journals. 🧵 Image
Image This effort was only possible because these journals require data and code repositories. This allowed us to compare data across papers and identify undisclosed connections between 15 studies (e.g., overlapping samples, overlapping interventions, reused treatment assignment). Image
Feb 19, 2025 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Abel: I am writing in my capacity as Chair of I4R. Last year, I was contacted by a researcher that alerted me of potential scientific misconduct in a set of papers all using data from a specific NGO.🧵 The concerns raised were sufficiently credible, so we identified all papers in question with available data repositories and assigned each one to a team of 3-5 researchers with prior experience doing reproduction for I4R. These were papers published in high ranking journals.
Jan 22, 2025 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
New research alert! Our study investigates the effectiveness of human-only, AI-assisted, and AI-led teams in assessing the reproducibility of quantitative social science research. We've got some surprising findings! Image 288 researchers (profs and graduate students) were randomly assigned into 103 teams across three groups: human-only, AI-assisted, and AI-led. The task? To reproduce results from published articles in the social sciences. How did each fare?
Oct 30, 2024 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
We had games in Munich earlier this week. 60+ participants reproducing 15 studies (3 econ, 4 poli sci and 8 psych articles)!

Some papers did not reproduce, missing data/codes, 2x revealed identity of participants, errors, etc.

A couple of thoughts from our chair (AB). 🧵 Image 1-Let's start with the obvious. Psychologists' views on reproducibility are VERY different than economist/pol scientists. The latter quickly run the codes, check for coding errors and spend hours thinking about rob checks....
Sep 2, 2024 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
🧵 In our latest DP "Job Market Stars," our chair AB, @Lamiis_k, and Marco Musumeci dive deep into the determinants of academic success in the economics job market, with a focus on p-hacking. Here’s what they found.
👇 Image 2/ Data: They analyzed 604 Job Market Papers (JMPs) from economics PhD candidates across 12 top ranked universities from 2018-2021. The goal? To uncover the factors that influence who lands those coveted academic positions.
Apr 8, 2024 • 24 tweets • 6 min read
Our first meta paper is out!! This paper combines our first 110 completed reproductions/replications. This is joint work with 350+ amazing coauthors.
We summarize our findings below.
econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwi4rdp…
Image Our focus is on articles published in leading economics and political science journals (2022-onwards). These journals all have a data and code availability policy and most have a data editor. Keep this in mind when reading this thread. Image
Oct 12, 2023 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Another new DP, this time from @RyanMcWay, Karim Nchare and Pu Sun who looked at Bold et al. (2022, AER) Market Access and Quality Upgrading: Evidence from Four Field Experiments.

econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwi4rdp… Bold et al. (2022b) investigate the effect of providing access to a larger, centralized market where quality is rewarded with a premium on farm productivity and framing incomes from smallholder maize farmers in western Uganda, using a series of RCTs and DID.