For many researchers, replication is still the “gold standard” that is crucial for verifying scientific findings (see, for example, Frank & Saxe, 2012; Iso-Ahola, 2020; Witte & Zenker, 2017). Indeed, Crandall and Sherman (2016) declared that: “[t]here is no controversy over the need for replication; virtually all scientists and philosophers of science endorse the notion that replication of one sort or another is absolutely essential” (p. 94). In recent decades, this has led to widespread concern because few experimental findings are actually being confirmed in this way (see, for example, Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Reproducibility Project: Psychology¹; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019).

中文翻译：

---

早期实验心理学：复制在 P-Hacking 之前是如何工作的？

对于许多研究人员来说，复制仍然是验证科学发现至关重要的“黄金标准”（例如，参见 Frank & Saxe，2012；Iso-Ahola，2020；Witte & Zenker，2017）。事实上，Crandall 和 Sherman (2016) 宣称：“[t] 对于复制的必要性没有争议；几乎所有的科学家和科学哲学家都赞同这样一种观点，即一种或另一种的复制是绝对必要的”（第 94 页）。近几十年来，这引起了广泛关注，因为实际上很少有实验结果以这种方式得到证实（例如，参见 Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Reproducibility Project: Psychology ¹ ; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019）。