Some interesting points are raised but they seem to want to dichotomise replication into present or absent by each study study and estimate the number of studies where it was present (as just more than one or not).

From a recent paper “In this work we suggested enhancing the systematic reviews meta-analyses, …, with a measure that quantifies the strength of replicability,i.e., the r-value. In the reporting, if the r-value is small we have evidence that the conclusion is based on more than one study, i.e., that the effect was replicated across studies.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.00088v2.pdf

To me, replication of studies just means the prior probabilities (from a common prior) were moved in similar directions to a posterior just based on each study, i.e. Posterior.i / Prior.0. Most definitely not a present or absent thing to be counted or estimated.

Keith O’Rourke

]]>$$\frac{1}{1-z}=\frac{1+z}{1-z^2}?$$ ]]>

http://genetics.org/content/165/4/2259 ]]>