Some of the most frequently cited claims of evidence either for or against astrology are reviewed. The reviews are based primarily on how well the studies satisfy the requirements of both the scientific and astrological communities.

Clearing the logjam in astrological research
Commentary on Geoffrey Dean and Ivan Kelly’s article “Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?”

Confirmation bias in the Wyman and Vyse experiment
Review of “Science versus the stars: A double-blind test of the validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and computer-generated astrological natal charts”

Cognitive bias in the McGrew and McFall experiment
Review of “A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology”

Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment
Review of “A double-blind test of astrology”

Is there really a Mars effect?
Review of criticism against Michel Gauquelin’s most tested finding, the last published article by Michel Gauquelin

Genetic indicators in the Hill and Thompson astrological research Review of “Redheads and Mars”

Injury event indicators in the Sara Klein Ridgley astrological research
Review of “Astrologically predictable patterns in work related injuries”

Sampling bias in the Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell test of the astrological Mars effect
Review of “Results of the U.S. test of the ‘Mars effect’ are negative”

Stock trading indicators in the Yuan, Zheng, and Zhu lunar cycles research
Review of “Are Investors Moon struck? Lunar Phases and Stock Returns”