Abstract
Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) proposed disclosure-based practices — a priori power analyses, full reporting of conditions and exclusions, results reported with and without exclusions applied — as a remedy for the replication crisis. Following these practices explicitly, our lab attempted to publish an online replication and extension of our earlier PNAS findings on image size and memory, expecting that doing so would make publication straightforward. It did not. The manuscript was rejected nine times over 2.5 years, largely on the grounds that a transparent, successful replication lacked sufficient theoretical novelty to warrant publication on its own; it was accepted only after this framing was substantially minimized in favor of additional analyses and an alternative theoretical framework. Here, I reflect on this experience and raise open questions about whether the field's evaluation of replications has kept pace with its stated commitment to them.