[fylham]

Cool result! But does it replicate?

[krastanov]

It was published in "Scientific Reports", a known low-quality journal. They are not necessary predatory like some of the truly bad journals, e.g., work in this journal still is supposed to pass the "not a low effort triviality and not obviously wrong" check and there are even some really cool things published in this journal. However, I generally take publications in this journal with a significant grain of salt.

Also, just FYI, "Scientific Reports" is not in a specific subfield -- I have published on quantum computing in this journal. That is not too strange, there are plenty of "generalist" journals that are good, but I thought it could still be useful context to know.

[samatman]

The replication crisis won't be over until everyone who matters observes a social obligation to treat any unreplicated paper as interesting fiction.

The first time is data. Only the second is science. Exceptions can be made, but not for this one.

[lebean]

It's totally legit. They made the participants sign an honesty pledge before answering the questionnaire!

[BeetleB]

No doubt, with pictures of trusted, respected authority figures on the walls in the room they were present in.

[dr_kretyn]

Well, it's been hand wavily described on 50 students with similar socio-economical backgrounds how much more replication would you like? There are also some references to statistics terms so it must have statistical power.

[fwip]

Well, it was published today, so you'll have to wait a little while to find out.

[canadiantim]

Give it a try yourself and let us know