IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-05523-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: a replication study in art history

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte C. S. Rulkens

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Rik Peels

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Maartje Stols-Witlox

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Sabrina Meloni

    (Mauritshuis)

  • Iris M. Lechner

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Lex Bouter

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Amsterdam Universities Medical Center)

Abstract

This article presents the results of a replication study in the humanities, more specifically in art history. The initial study was carried out in 1998–99 and concerned the attribution of two similar painted portraits of Rembrandt in the collections of the Mauritshuis in The Hague and the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg. In the replication study, the initial research questions were readdressed: Is the Mauritshuis version painted by Rembrandt or not, is the Germanisches Nationalmuseum version painted by Rembrandt or not, and how do these paintings relate to each other? Two types of replication were utilised. First, a reproduction – a repetition that stayed as close to the initial study as possible. Second, a conceptual replication – a repetition that used an improved study protocol including new technical research methods. As part of the conceptual replication, the paintings were brought together and compared in real life during an expert meeting. A new protocol to structure expert meetings – the Attribution Expert Consensus Meeting (A-ECM) – was introduced to increase future replicability and mitigate bias related to group dynamics. The reproduction and conceptual replication corroborated the conclusions of the initial study. The A-ECM method revealed differences and similarities in the experts’ argumentation and their valuation of evidence in support of these conclusions. The study demonstrated how replicating this attribution study not only enhanced the trustworthiness of the initial findings, but also revealed broader epistemic implications. In particular, the replication process proved instrumental in identifying avenues for refining attribution methodologies. These include enhancing transparency, promoting equitable knowledge exchange, mitigating biases, and improving future replicability of expert assessments. Collectively, these improvements contribute to more robust and well-substantiated attribution practices. The introduction of the A-ECM further exemplifies how formalised consensus methods can increase scholarly transparency, efficiency, quality, and future replicability of attribution processes. As such, replication can contribute to pathways for adapting art history to current demands of Open Science.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte C. S. Rulkens & Rik Peels & Maartje Stols-Witlox & Sabrina Meloni & Iris M. Lechner & Lex Bouter, 2025. "The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: a replication study in art history," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05523-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05523-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.