That replication of the replication study that didn’t replicate? It doesn’t replicate.

I give up.

A few days ago I posted about the psychology replication study that didn’t replicate. Apparently the replication of the replication is quite problematic.

Here is a discussion from Replication Watch, which notes

independent commentaries have also emerged challenging Gilbert and colleagues’ methodology and conclusion by Sanjay Srivastava, Uri Simonsohn, Daniel Lakens, Simine Vazire, Andrew Gelman, David Funder, Rolf Zwaan, and Dorothy Bishop.

I’m sure this is a fascinating and important debate but I have not had time to read these in depth, as I am barely able to answer my emails.

I would love pointers to a simple and relatively unbiased roundup. In the meantime, I felt like I should at least note the controversy.