Comment on: Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results

- A paper by Fabrigar and Wegener (2016) mistakenly applied and interpreted a method to detect bias in a set of experiments.
- There is no conflict with the other analyses described in Fabrigar and Wegener (2016) when the bias analyses are corrected.
- Fabrigar and Wegener (2016) promote meta-analytic methods that do not handle various questionable research practices.
- The discussion clarifies how to interpret a seemingly biased set of experiments.

Fabrigar and Wegener (2016) raised several important points about the role of replication in verifying, interpreting, analyzing, and understanding scientific results. Unfortunately, they made several mistakes when applying the Test for Excess Significance to detect reporting biases. As a result of these mistakes, their examples do not demonstrate how to identify a robust meta-analytic effect in a seemingly biased set of experiments. This commentary corrects their mistakes and discusses ways that seemingly biased experiment sets can be interpreted.