Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson described the corrected evidence as consistent with the reproducibility of psychological science being statistically indistinguishable from 100%, while explicitly noting this does not prove replicability is actually 100%.
Notes on verification
Directly confirmed by the original Science publication text and corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources including Harvard's project page and RetractionWatch coverage.
Sources
- Comment on 'Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science' (gking.harvard.edu)
- https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad7243 (science.org)
- https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/07/lets-not-mischaracterize-replication-studies-authors/ (retractionwatch.com)