There is an intense debate underway about the replicability of empirical findings in the behavioral, social, and cognitive sciences. Startled by the results of numerous replication projects conducted in recent years, scholars and scientists have begun to discuss

1. what replicability actually means and when replication can be considered to have been successful or to have failed;
2. whether low replication rates are due to excessive false-positive findings in the literature, methodological weaknesses in replication studies, or the underestimated influence of context effects; and
3. what can be done to sustain a high level of replicability in the behavioral, social, and cognitive sciences.

So far, most of these discussions have been based on ad hoc arguments. Thus, a concerted, integrative, and interdisciplinary metascience research program such as "META-REP" is needed to systematically challenge these arguments and contribute to the emerging field of replication science.