Recently Curated

Content type
Collections of Replications
Reanalyses - Reproducibility/Robustness
Reanalyses - Meta-analyses (traditional)
Original research
Registered Report format
Preregistered design + analysis
Preregistered study design
Open study materials
Open data
Open code/Code Ocean capsule
Reporting standard compliance

Search among 142 articles and 6 collections reporting 2,778 replications of 241 effects in the social and life sciences. For replication details, view associated article or collection (if available; or see Replication Page (table view)).


Our Approach

(See our white paper for full details of our approach.)

Science requires transparency. No platform, however, currently exists to ensure that published scientific articles comply with the relevant transparency standards. Curate Science aims to solve this problem by allowing researchers to label, link, and organize the transparency and replication of their findings.

We are developing harmonized “suites” of transparency (and replication) standards for different kinds of empirical research. Akin to the harmonization of communication standards (e.g., TCP/IP) in the 1970s, which paved the way for the Internet, this has immense potential to accelerate scientific progress by revolutionizing the conduct and validity of meta-analyses, and by expediting reforms of transparency standards at the institutional level (see our white paper's Table 1 for a full list of benefits achieved by labeling transparency). It will allow journals, universities, and funders ensure that their articles, employees, and grantees, respectively, comply with the appropriate transparency standards.

Thanks to a 2-year grant from the European Commission (Marie-Curie grant), we are currently scaling up the website to allow curation at a larger scale. Practicing what we preach, the platform is developed openly, with an open-source code base, an open license, and an (open) REST API.


Current Contributors
Current contributors are helping with conceptual developments of Curate Science, writing/editing of related manuscripts, and/or with curation.

Etienne P. LeBel
KU Leuven
Founder & Lead

Wolf Vanpaemel
KU Leuven

Touko Kuusi
University of Helsinki

Randy McCarthy
Northern Illinois University

Brian Earp
University of Oxford

Malte Elson
Ruhr University Bochum
Current Advisory Board (as of June 2017)
Advisory board members periodically provide feedback on grant proposal applications and related manuscripts and general advice regarding Curate Science's current focus areas and future directions.

Susann Fiedler
Max Planck Institute - Bonn

Anna van't Veer
Leiden University

Julia Rohrer
Max Planck Institute - Berlin

Michèle Nuijten
Tilburg University

Dorothy Bishop
University of Oxford

Brent Roberts
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

Hal Pashler
University of California - San Diego

Daniel Simons
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

Alex Holcombe
University of Sydney

E-J Wagenmakers
University of Amsterdam

Katie Corker
Grand Valley State University

Simine Vazire
University of California – Davis

Richard Lucas
Michigan State University

Marco Perugini
University of Milan-Bicocca

Lorne Campbell
University of Western Ontario

Eric Eich
University of British Columbia

Mark Brandt
Tilburg University
Technical Advisors

Alex Kyllo

Mike Morrison

Frequently Asked Questions


What was the original inspiration for Curate Science?

The idea behind Curate Science originated in 2014 amidst the bustling early days of the "open science movement" in psychology. Several new transparency and replication initiatives were emerging. The idea was to try to organize all this information in one place, creating a kind of public commons for the research community (or "science-commons", which was our original name).

Who started Curate Science?

Curate Science was started by 2 academic researchers (Etienne LeBel and Christian Battista) and 2 volunteer Silicon Valley software developers.

Present/Current Focus

What is our current focus/main activities?

We're currently focused on 2 main activities: (1) Curating the transparency of empirical articles (with respect to 5 fundamental transparency categories, see above) and (2) Tracking (new sample) replications of published effects. This primarily involves manual curation, however, we rely on several tools to increase curation efficiency and accuracy (e.g., various R scripts from the "shiny" R package and article metadata extraction tools using "scholar" and "rcrossref" R packages).

Who is currently working on Curate Science?

Etienne LeBel is the founder and current lead of the initiative. Wolf Vanpaemel contributes in major ways conceptually and in terms of grant funding leveraging. Touko Kuusi is currently the main volunteer curator. Randy McCarthy, Brian Earp, and Malte Elson (and Vanpaemel) were substantial contributors to the unified framework white paper that guides the design and development of the platform (recently published at Advanced in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (LeBel, McCarthy, Earp, Elson, & Vanpaemel, 2018). Finally, our 17-person advisory board, composed of trailblazers in the transparency and replication movement, provide regular feedback regarding grant proposal applications and Curate Science activities.

Who is funding Curate Science?

We're currently funded by a 2-year grant from the European Commission (Marie-Curie grant). We have submitted two other large grants currently under review (totalling > CAD$1,000,000 over 4-years) to fund additional software developers and PhD student curators/editors (one from the not-for-profit sector, the other from a Belgium public granting agency).


Is Curate Science a "central authority" that provide "official stamps of approval" of trustworthy research?

No. Our goal is to curate the transparency of empirical research as accurately and impartially as possible, rather than adjucating the quality of research directly. This then allows the community of researchers to more effectively scrutinize published findings in nuanced ways. And given the crowdsourced nature of the platform, we will be the opposite of a central authority: transparency and replications will be curated by the broadest/most inclusive group of researchers possible, thus maximizing theoretical and viewpoint diversity.

A lot is at stake when curating replication results. How will Curate Science ensure curation is done in ways that are fair to original authors?

We have specifically designed the platform and user interface to be as fair and generous as possible to original authors. For instance, original authors will be able to post responses to replication results, allowing them to comment on the quality/fidelity of the replication attempts and make new (falsifiable) predictions regarding more diagnostic conditions under which a target effect might be observable.

Curate Science seems to have good intentions, but isn't it going to "stigmatize" older research conducted according to different standards?

Kind of, but no. It is true that today's (much needed) higher transparency standards in some ways make older research seem less impressive. However, Curate Science is committed to rewarding positive scientific behaviors rather than punishing questionable behaviors. Indeed, we make it easy to get the most credit possible for conducting and reporting one's research only a little bit more transparently. That is, as transparent as you currently have time for and/or are comfortable with. For example, if you're uncomfortable publicly posting your data for an article, you could still earn credit by publicly posting your code and linking to it on Curate Science.

Future directions/Road Map

I want to add my transparently reported articles. When will I be able to do so?

Based on curating over 1,200 replications of 200+ effects reported in hundreds of articles in the social and life sciences (the largest known curation effort of its kind), we have now completely redesigned our platform so that it can accommodate a wider array of different kinds of studies and articles. We will soon begin testing our redesigned platform with a small group of beta testers (December 2018). We plan to open up the platform to a larger group of researchers in early 2019. Sign up to receive our newsletter to get regular updates on our progress!

What's the story behind Curate Science's new snail logo?

Scientific research must be done carefully. Solid scientific facts accumulate slowly and gradually (as does scientific curation). Snails are slow but they reliably get to where they need to go (Slowly but surely, mostly slowly.). Snails, consequently, are a fitting symbol to convey the slow, careful, and gradual nature of science. Snails are also cute.


Please sign up below to receive the Curate Science Newsletter to be notifed about news and updates.
See past announcements.