This sentence might actually sound exciting if I knew what the author was talking about. This article was definitely written for an audience that would understand the jargon.

I don't like the way the author uses these links to reference papers. How hard is it to say "Pospiech and Felden note.."?? Using the numbered links instead of words really disrupts the flow while reading.

The structure of this whole paragraph reminds me of the standardized testing in grade school where you had to write out the steps of your process in math problems. Like "First I did... Then I did... Finally I did this... etc."

Much jargon. Wow.

The large amount of statistics jargon throughout the beginning and middle of the article made this a very dry read. It wasn't until the end of the article that I fully comprehended the point they were making.

I wish they would have elaborated more at the beginning on the definition of effect sizes. It took a while to figure out what exactly they meant by the phrase, so it was very hard to read this article until that was understood.

This section drives home the point that science isn't perfect and that it changes often. The writer has essentially told the reader that it's okay to get different results than another research team. Getting different results is what drives innovation.

I wonder if the reproducibility rate would be different if the study had been done on another science, like chemistry or physics....