Replication of "null results" -- Absence of evidence or evidence of absence?

In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a "replication success". Here we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and "replication success" can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately quantify the evidence for the absence of an effect and how they can be applied in the replication setting. Using data from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology we illustrate that many original and replication studies with "null results" are in fact inconclusive, and that their replicability is lower than suggested by the non-significance approach. We conclude that it is important to also replicate studies with statistically non-significant results, but that they should be designed, analyzed, and interpreted appropriately.