search

eplebel / science-commons

platform to organize and track the transparency and replications of published scientific findings.
http://curatescience.org
MIT License
2 stars 3 forks source link

Missing replication studies for Bargh & Shalev (10.1037/a0023527) #27

Closed eplebel closed 10 years ago

eplebel commented 10 years ago

this is a weird one! The 9 replication studies by Donnellan et al. (scicom5) are not showing up on the Bargh & Shalev (10.1037/a0023527) page!

I've triple-checked the info in articles.csv file and it all seems good: -->for the 10.1037/a0023527 row, it has "scicom5" under replications, -->for the scicom5 row, it has "10.1037/a0023527" under replicationOf and also has the correct info under repLink

cbattista commented 10 years ago

yes, very curoious...

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Etienne P. LeBel <notifications@github.com

wrote:

this is a weird one! The 9 replication studies by Donnellan et al. (scicom5) are not showing up on the Bargh & Shalev (10.1037/a0023527) page!

I've triple-checked the info in articles.csv file and it all seems good: -->for the 10.1037/a0023527 row, it has "scicom5" under replications, -->for the scicom5 row, it has "10.1037/a0023527" under replicationOf and also has the correct info under repLink

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/issues/27 .

cbattista commented 10 years ago

fixed in e9145c84eb246720aa8623e3d1115817ef379d68

eplebel commented 10 years ago

That one is still fixed, but now I just noticed 10.2307/25053899 (Ariely et al., 2003) is missing one replication study

10.2139/ssrn.2352692 | scicom10

i.e., it's missing the scicom10 (Simonsohn, 2013) replication study (it's only showing the 2 from 10.2139/ssrn.2352692)

see: http://science-commons.org:9292/?doi=10.2307/25053899

cbattista commented 10 years ago

seems fine to me...just try reloading the page/clearin' your cache

eplebel commented 10 years ago

ok good now!

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:30 PM, cbattista notifications@github.com wrote:

seems fine to me...just try reloading the page/clearin' your cache

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/issues/27#issuecomment-34816456 .