The corrected evidence in Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson's comment is described as consistent with psychological science reproducibility being statistically indistinguishable from 100%, while being insufficient to reliably estimate whether replicability actually is 100%.
Notes on verification
Directly confirmed by the primary source text and corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources including a blog, Retraction Watch, and Harvard Gazette coverage, all consistent on both parts of the claim. [tier=unverified indep_score=0.3 clusters=2 claim_tier=notable] [rescored 2026-09-15: curated origin-host map (PR #65); unclassified hosts no longer scored as aggregators]
Sources
- Comment on 'Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science' (seed:psychology_and_neuroscience)
- http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2018/05/sowing-seeds-of-doubt-how-gilbert-et.html (corroboration)
- https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/07/lets-not-mischaracterize-replication-studies-authors/ (corroboration)