In the criticism and research section various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience This has largely been due to lack of replication of results by independent experimenters  The references for this statement are as follows  Hyman Ray  Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena The Journal of Parapsychology   httpfindarticlescomparticlesmimisnvai Retrieved     Akers C  Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology Advances in Parapsychological Research  PesquisaPSI httpwwwpesquisapsicombooksadvancesMethodologicalCriticismshtml Retrieved     Child IL  Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology Advances in Parapsychological Research  PesquisaPSI httpwwwpesquisapsicombooksadvancesCriticisminExperimentalhtml Retrieved     Wiseman Richard Smith Matthew et al  Exploring possible sendertoexperimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments  Psychophysical Research Laboratories The Journal of Parapsychology httpfindarticlescomparticlesmimisnvai Retrieved   The way in which this information is given suggests that such researchers are independent Just looking at the names of the studies this can be seen as incorrect  Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology  I am less aware of the reliability of the others but using Hyman and Wiseman immediately rings alarm bells Cheers