DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuijten Research 30 05 2018.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuijten Research 30 05 2018.Pdf Tilburg University Research on research Nuijten, Michèle Publication date: 2018 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Nuijten, M. (2018). Research on research: A meta-scientific study of problems and solutions in psychological science. Gildeprint. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. sep. 2021 Research on Research A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science Michèle B. Nuijten Author: Michèle B. Nuijten Cover design: Niels Bongers – www.nielsbongers.nl Printed by: Gildeprint – www.gildeprint.nl ISBN: 978-94-6233-928-6 Research on Research A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. E. H. L. Aarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op woensdag 30 mei 2018 om 14:00 uur door Michèle Bieneke Nuijten, geboren te Utrecht. Promotiecommissie Promotores: Prof. dr. J. M. Wicherts Prof. dr. M. A. L. M. van Assen Overige leden: Prof. dr. C. D. Chambers Prof. dr. E. J. Wagenmakers Prof. dr. R. A. Zwaan Dr. M. Bakker Contents 1 Introduction 7 Part I: Statistical Reporting Inconsistencies 2 The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985-2013) 17 3 The validity of the tool “statcheck” in discovering statistical reporting inconsistencies 61 4 Journal data sharing policies and statistical reporting inconsistencies in psychology 83 5 Preventing statistical errors in scientific journals 127 6 Discussion Part I 135 Part II: Bias in Effect Sizes 7 The replication paradox: combining studies can decrease accuracy of effect size estimates 145 8 Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research 171 9 Effect sizes, power, and biases in intelligence research: a meta-meta-analysis 175 10 Discussion Part II 223 11 Epilogue 231 References 239 Summary 263 Nederlandse samenvatting 267 Dankwoord 271 Chapter 1 Introduction CHAPTER 1 Can we trust psychological research findings? This question is asked more and more, and there is growing concern that many published findings are overly optimistic (Francis, 2014; Ioannidis, 2005, 2008; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). An increasing number of studies show that we might have good reason to doubt the validity of published psychological findings, and researchers are even starting to speak of a “crisis of confidence” or a “replicability crisis” (Baker, 2016a; Pashler & Harris, 2012; Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Spellman, 2015). 1.1 Replicability in Psychology The growing concern about psychology’s trustworthiness is fueled by the finding that a large number of published psychological findings could not be replicated in novel samples. For instance, the large-scale, collaborative Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RPP) investigated the replicability of 100 psychology studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Two of the main findings in this project were that the percentage of statistically significant effects dropped from 97% in the original studies to only 36% in the replications, and that the effect sizes in the replications were only about half the size of those in the original studies. Other multi-lab initiatives also failed to replicate key findings in psychology (Alogna et al., 2014; Eerland et al., 2016; Hagger et al., 2016; Wagenmakers et al., 2016) There are several possible explanations for the low replicability rates in psychology. One possibility is that meaningful differences between the original studies and their replications caused the differences in results (Baumeister, 2016; Dijksterhuis, 2014; Iso-Ahola, 2017; Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Indeed, there are some indications that some effects show large between-study variability, which could explain the low replicability rates (Klein et al., 2014) . Another explanation, however, is that the original studies overestimated the effects or were false positives (chance) findings. 1.2 Bias and Errors Several research findings are in line with the notion that published effects are overestimated. For instance, the large majority of studies in psychology find support for the tested hypothesis (Fanelli, 2010; Francis, 2014; Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995). However, this is incompatible with the generally low statistical power of studies in the psychological literature (Bakker, van Dijk, & Wicherts, 2012; Button et al., 2013; Cohen, 1962; Jennions & Moller, 2003; Maxwell, 2004; Schimmack, 2012). Low power decreases the probability that a study finds a significant effect. Conversely, and perhaps counterintuitively, the lower the power, the higher the probability that a significant finding is a false positive. The large number of underpowered studies in psychology that do find significant effects therefore might indicate a problem with the trustworthiness of these findings. 8 INTRODUCTION The notion that many findings are overestimated also becomes clear in meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is a crucial scientific tool to quantitatively synthesize the results of different studies on the same research question (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). The results of meta-analyses inspire policies and treatments, so it is essential that the effects reported in them are valid. However, in many fields meta-analytic effects appear to be overestimated (Ferguson & Brannick, 2012; Ioannidis, 2011; Niemeyer, Musch, & Pietrowsky, 2012, 2013; Sterne, Gavaghan, & Egger, 2000; Sutton, Duval, Tweedie, Abrams, & Jones, 2000). One of the main causes seems to be publication bias; the phenomenon that statistically significant findings have a higher probability of being published than nonsignificant findings (Greenwald, 1975). The evidence that the field of psychology is affected by publication bias is overwhelming. Studies found that manuscripts without significant results are both less likely to be submitted and less likely to be accepted for publication (Cooper, DeNeve, & Charlton, 1997; Coursol & Wagner, 1986; Dickersin, Chan, Chalmers, Sacks, & Smith, 1987; Epstein, 1990; Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014; Greenwald, 1975; Mahoney, 1977). Furthermore, published studies seem to have systematically larger effects than unpublished ones (Franco et al., 2014; Polanin, Tanner-Smith, & Hennessy, 2015). The de facto requirement to report statistically significant results in journal articles can lead to unwanted strategic behavior in data analysis (Bakker et al., 2012). Data analysis in psychology is very flexible: there are many possible statistical analyses to answer the same research question (Gelman & Loken, 2014; Wicherts et al., 2016). It can be shown that strategic use of this flexibility will almost always result in at least one significant finding; one that is likely to be a false positive (Bakker et al., 2012; Simmons et al., 2011). This becomes even more problematic, if only the analyses that “worked” are reported and presented as if they were planned from the start (Kerr, 1998; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, Maas, & Kievit, 2012). Survey results show that many psychologists admit to such “questionable research practices” (QRPs; Agnoli, Wicherts, Veldkamp, Albiero, & Cubelli, 2017; John et al., 2012), and use of study registers and later disclosures by researchers provide direct evidence that indeed some of these practices are quite common (Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2016; LeBel et al., 2013). Another example of a QRP that illustrates a strong focus on finding significant results, is wrongly rounding down p-values to < .05. This is a particularly surprising strategy, since this can be readily observed in published papers. If a p-value is wrongly rounded down, it often leads to a statistical reporting inconsistency. Statistical reporting inconsistencies occur when the test statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the p-value in a null hypothesis significance test (NHST) are not internally consistent. If the reported p-value is significant, whereas the recalculated p-value based on the reported degrees of freedom and test statistic is not, or vice versa, this is considered a gross inconsistency. Several studies found a high prevalence of such 9 CHAPTER 1 reporting inconsistencies (e.g., Bakker & Wicherts, 2011; Caperos & Pardo, 2013). Even though the majority of inconsistencies seemed to be innocent typos and rounding errors, there is evidence for a systematic bias towards finding significant results, in line with the notion that some researchers may wrongly round
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019)
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25303 SHARE Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019) DETAILS 256 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-48616-3 | DOI 10.17226/25303 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Committee on National Statistics; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Nuclear and Radiation Studies FIND RELATED TITLES Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Division on SUGGESTEDEngineering an CITATIONd Physical Sciences; Board on Research Data and Information; NCaotmiomnaittl eAec oand eSmciiesn coef ,S Ecniegninceeesr, inEgn,g Mineedeircininge,, aanndd MPeudbilcicin Peo 2li0c1y;9 P. Roleicpyr oadnudcibility aGnlodb Rael Aplfifcaairbsi;li tNy ainti oSncaiel Ancea.d Wemaisehsi nogf tSonc,ie DnCce: sT,h Een Ngianteioenrainl gA, caandde Mmeiedsi cPinress. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of False Positives and False Negatives in the STATCHECK 1 Algorithm: Reply to Nuijten Et Al
    Cite as: Schmidt, T. (2017). Sources of false positives and false negatives in the STATCHECK 1 algorithm: Reply to Nuijten et al. (2016). arXiv:1610.01010v8 [q-bio.NC] Sources of false positives and false negatives in the STATCHECK algorithm: Reply to Nuijten et al. (2016) arXiv:1610.01010v8 [q-bio.NC] Thomas Schmidt University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Experimental Psychology Unit www.sowi.uni-kl.de/psychologie [email protected] Abstract STATCHECK is an R algorithm designed to scan papers automatically for inconsistencies between test statistics and their associated p values (Nuijten et al., 2016). The goal of this comment is to point out an important and well-documented flaw in this busily applied algorithm: It cannot handle corrected p values. As a result, statistical tests applying appropriate corrections to the p value (e.g., for multiple tests, post-hoc tests, violations of assumptions, etc.) are likely to be flagged as reporting inconsistent statistics, whereas papers omitting necessary corrections are certified as correct. The STATCHECK algorithm is thus valid for only a subset of scientific papers, and conclusions about the quality or integrity of statistical reports should never be based solely on this program. STATCHECK is an R algorithm designed to scan papers automatically for inconsistencies between test statistics and their reported p values (Nuijten, Hartgerink, van Assen, Epskamp, and Wicherts, 2016). The algorithm is currently part of these authors’ project to automatically scan thousands of scientific psychology papers and post the results on a website when the program detects some discrepancy, essentially flagging papers for reporting inconsistent test statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes on CRAN 2014-07-01 to 2014-12-31
    NEWS AND NOTES 192 Changes on CRAN 2014-07-01 to 2014-12-31 by Kurt Hornik and Achim Zeileis New packages in CRAN task views Bayesian BayesTree. Cluster fclust, funFEM, funHDDC, pgmm, tclust. Distributions FatTailsR, RTDE, STAR, predfinitepop, statmod. Econometrics LinRegInteractive, MSBVAR, nonnest2, phtt. Environmetrics siplab. Finance GCPM, MSBVAR, OptionPricing, financial, fractal, riskSimul. HighPerformanceComputing GUIProfiler, PGICA, aprof. MachineLearning BayesTree, LogicForest, hdi, mlr, randomForestSRC, stabs, vcrpart. MetaAnalysis MAVIS, ecoreg, ipdmeta, metaplus. NumericalMathematics RootsExtremaInflections, Rserve, SimplicialCubature, fastGHQuad, optR. OfficialStatistics CoImp, RecordLinkage, rworldmap, tmap, vardpoor. Optimization RCEIM, blowtorch, globalOptTests, irace, isotone, lbfgs. Phylogenetics BAMMtools, BoSSA, DiscML, HyPhy, MPSEM, OutbreakTools, PBD, PCPS, PHYLOGR, RADami, RNeXML, Reol, Rphylip, adhoc, betapart, dendextend, ex- pands, expoTree, jaatha, kdetrees, mvMORPH, outbreaker, pastis, pegas, phyloTop, phyloland, rdryad, rphast, strap, surface, taxize. Psychometrics IRTShiny, PP, WrightMap, mirtCAT, pairwise. ReproducibleResearch NMOF. Robust TEEReg, WRS2, robeth, robustDA, robustgam, robustloggamma, robustreg, ror, rorutadis. Spatial PReMiuM. SpatioTemporal BayesianAnimalTracker, TrackReconstruction, fishmove, mkde, wildlifeDI. Survival DStree, ICsurv, IDPSurvival, MIICD, MST, MicSim, PHeval, PReMiuM, aft- gee, bshazard, bujar, coxinterval, gamboostMSM, imputeYn, invGauss, lsmeans, multipleNCC, paf, penMSM, spBayesSurv,
    [Show full text]
  • The Reproducibility of Statistical Results in Psychological Research: an Investigation Using Unpublished Raw Data
    Psychological Methods © 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 2, No. 999, 000 ISSN: 1082-989X https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000365 The Reproducibility of Statistical Results in Psychological Research: An Investigation Using Unpublished Raw Data Richard Artner, Thomas Verliefde, Sara Steegen, Sara Gomes, Frits Traets, Francis Tuerlinckx, and Wolf Vanpaemel Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Abstract We investigated the reproducibility of the major statistical conclusions drawn in 46 articles published in 2012 in three APA journals. After having identified 232 key statistical claims, we tried to reproduce, for each claim, the test statistic, its degrees of freedom, and the corresponding p value, starting from the raw data that were provided by the authors and closely following the Method section in the article. Out of the 232 claims, we were able to successfully reproduce 163 (70%), 18 of which only by deviating from the article’s analytical description. Thirteen (7%) of the 185 claims deemed significant by the authors are no longer so. The reproduction successes were often the result of cumbersome and time-consuming trial-and-error work, suggesting that APA style reporting in conjunction with raw data makes numerical verification at least hard, if not impossible. This article discusses the types of mistakes we could identify and the tediousness of our reproduction efforts in the light of a newly developed taxonomy for reproducibility. We then link our findings with other findings of empirical research on this topic, give practical recommendations on how to achieve reproducibility, and discuss the challenges of large-scale reproducibility checks as well as promising ideas that could considerably increase the reproducibility of psychological research.
    [Show full text]
  • Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
    1 Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science Brian A. Nosek Center for Open Science; University of Virginia Tom E. Hardwicke University of Amsterdam Hannah Moshontz University of Wisconsin-Madison Aurélien Allard University of California, Davis Katherine S. Corker Grand Valley State University Anna Dreber Stockholm School of Economics; University of Innsbruck Fiona Fidler University of Melbourne Joe Hilgard Illinois State University Melissa Kline Struhl Center for Open Science Michèle Nuijten Meta-Research Center; Tilburg University Julia Rohrer Leipzig University Felipe Romero University of Groningen Anne Scheel Eindhoven University of Technology Laura Scherer University of Colorado Denver - Anschutz Medical Campus Felix Schönbrodt Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, LMU Open Science Center Simine Vazire University of Melbourne In press at the Annual Review of Psychology Final version Completed: April 6, 2021 Authors’ note: B.A.N. and M.K.S. are employees of the nonprofit Center for Open Science that has a mission to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. K.S.C. is the unpaid executive officer of the nonprofit Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science. This work was supported by grants to B.A.N. from Arnold Ventures, John Templeton Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Templeton Religion Trust. T.E.H. received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 841188. We thank Adam Gill for assistance creating Figures 1, 2, and S2. Data, materials, and code are available at https://osf.io/7np92/. B.A.N. Drafted the outline and manuscript sections, collaborated with section leads on conceptualizing and drafting their components, coded replication study outcomes for Figure 1, coded journal policies for Figure 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Technology and Human Behavior: Standards, Old and New
    The Science of Technology and Human Behavior: Standards, Old and New Malte Elson Ruhr University Bochum Andrew K. Przybylski University of Oxford The Present Technology and Human Behavior – a title that could not be more generic for a Special Issue. On its face, the phenomena examined in this issue are not distinct from others published in the Journal of Media Psychology (JMP): Can immersive technology be used to promote pro-environmental behaviors? (Soliman, Peetz, & Davydenko); How do subtitles and complexity of MOOC-type videos impact learning outcomes? (van der Zee, Admiraal, Paas, Saab, & Giesbers); Does cooperative video game play foster prosocial behavior? (Breuer, Velez, Bowman, Wulf, & Bente); What is the role of video game use in the unique risk environment of college students? (Holz Ivory, Ivory, & Lanier); Do interactive narratives have the potential to advocate social change? (Steinemann, Iten, Opwis, Forde, Frasseck, & Mekler). What makes this issue special is not a thematic focus, but the nature of the scientific approach to hypothesis testing: It is explicitly confirmatory. All five studies are registered reports which are reviewed in two phases: First, the theoretical background, hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans of a study are peer-reviewed before the data are collected. If they are evaluated as sound, the study receives an “in-principle” acceptance, and researchers proceed to conduct it (taking potential changes or additions suggested by the reviewers into consideration). Consequently, the data collected can be used as a true (dis-)confirmatory hypothesis test. In a second step, the soundness of the analyses and discussion section are reviewed, but the publication decision is not contingent on the outcome of the study (see our call for papers; Elson, Przybylski, and Krämer, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Content Mining Psychology Articles for Statistical Test Results
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 August 2016 doi:10.20944/preprints201608.0191.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Data 2016, 1, 14; doi:10.3390/data1030014 Data Descriptor 688,112 Statistical Results: Content Mining Psychology Articles for Statistical Test Results Chris H. J. Hartgerink Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037AB Tilburg, The Netherlands; [email protected]; Tel.: +31-134-664-126 Simple Summary: A dataset of 688,112 statistical test results reported according to the standards prescribed by the American Psychological Association (APA), mined from 50,845 articles out of 167,318 published by the APA, Springer, Sage, and Taylor & Francis. Mining from Wiley and Elsevier was actively blocked. Metadata for each article are included. All journals included, scripts, etc. are available at https://github.com/chartgerink/2016statcheck_data and preserved at http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.59818 Abstract: In this data deposit, I describe a dataset that is the result of content mining 167,318 published articles for statistical test results. As a result of this content mining, 688,112 results from 50,845 articles were extracted. In order to provide a comprehensive set of data, the statistical results are supplemented with metadata from the article they originate from. The dataset is provided in a comma separated file (CSV) in long-format. For each of the 688,112 results, 20 variables are included, of which seven are article metadata and 13 pertain to the individual statistical results (e.g., reported and recalculated p-value). A five-pronged approach was taken to generate the dataset: (i) collect journal lists, (ii) spider journal pages for articles, (iii) download articles, (iv) add article metadata, and (v) mine articles for statistical results.
    [Show full text]
  • March Methodology Madness
    The Annual Issue Devoted to Research Methods and Practices ObserverVol. 30, No. 3 March 2017 March Methodology Madness 0 Featuring: R Tools Created by Psychological Scientists and for Psychological Scientists a publication of www.psychologicalscience.org/observer Integrative Science Symposia Our Social Brain: Neurobiology of The Science of Successful Aging The Push and Pull of Values and Human Interactions Chair: Corinna E. Loeckenhoff, Behavior Chair: Piotr Winkielman, Department of Department of Human Development, Chair: Qi Wang, Department of Human Cornell University, USA Development, Cornell University, USA Psychology, University of California, 23-25 March 2017 | Vienna, Austria San Diego, USA Monica Fabiani, Department of Chi-yue Chiu, Department of Christian Keysers, Social Brain Lab, Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Psychology, The Chinese University of Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Champaign, USA Hong Kong, China and Department of Psychology, University Teresa Liu-Ambrose, Department of Heidi Keller, Department of of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Physical Therapy, University of British Psychology, Osnabrück University, Brian D. Knutson, Department of Columbia, Canada Germany Register Today Psychology and Neuroscience, Stanford Denise C. Park, Center for Vital Hazel R. Markus, Department of University, USA Longevity The University of Texas at Psychology, Stanford University, USA Dallas, USA Claus Lamm, Faculty of Psychology, Scott Atran, School of Anthropology Department of Basic Psychological Research Karl
    [Show full text]
  • Striking Similarities Between Publications from China Describing Single Gene Knockdown Experiments in Human Cancer Cell Lines
    Scientometrics DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-2209-6 Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines Jennifer A. Byrne1,2 Cyril Labbé3 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Comparing 5 publications from China that described knockdowns of the human TPD52L2 gene in human cancer cell lines identified unexpected similarities between these publications, flaws in experimental design, and mismatches between some described experiments and the reported results. Following communications with journal editors, two of these TPD52L2 publications have been retracted. One retraction notice stated that while the authors claimed that the data were original, the experiments had been out-sourced to a biotechnology company. Using search engine queries, automatic text-analysis, different similarity measures, and further visual inspection, we identified 48 examples of highly similar papers describing single gene knockdowns in 1–2 human cancer cell lines that were all published by investigators from China. The incorrect use of a particular TPD52L2 shRNA sequence as a negative or non-targeting control was identified in 30/48 (63%) of these publications, using a combination of Google Scholar searches and visual inspection. Overall, these results suggest that some publications describing the effects of single gene knockdowns in human cancer cell lines may include the results of experiments that were not performed by the authors. This has serious implications for the validity
    [Show full text]
  • Sprievodca Svetom Vedeckého Publikovania Učebný Text Pre Kurz Publikačný Poradca
    0 Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR, Bratislava Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Jitka Dobbersteinová – Simona Hudecová – Zuzana Stožická Bratislava, 2019 1 Názov Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Podnázov Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Autori Mgr. Jitka Dobbersteinová PhDr. Simona Hudecová RNDr. Zuzana Stožická, PhD. Recenzenti doc. Mgr. Radoslav Harman, PhD., Fakulta matematiky, fyziky a informatiky Univerzity Komenského PhDr. Ľubica Jedličková, PhD., Slovenská poľnohospodárska knižnica Prof. RNDr. Vladimír Kováč, CSc., Prírodovedecká fakulta Univerzity Komenského Korektorka Mgr. Lucia Nižníková Vydalo Vydavateľstvo otvorenej vedy, Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR, Bratislava Rok vydania 2019 prvé vydanie Tento učebný text (s výnimkou označených ilustrácií, ktoré sú použité so súhlasom majiteľa autorských práv) je šírený pod licenciou Creative Commons 4.0 – Atribution CC BY, ktorá umožňuje voľné používanie diela za predpokladu uvedenia mien autorov. Obálka Ing. Pavol Martinický Creative Commons 4.0 – Atribution-Non Commercial CC BY-NC (nekomerčné používanie diela za predpokladu uvedenia autora) ISBN 978-80-89965-17-5 2 Názov Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Podnázov Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Autori Jitka Dobbersteinová, Simona Hudecová, Zuzana Stožická Recenzenti doc. Mgr. Radoslav Harman, PhD. PhDr. Ľubica Jedličková, PhD. prof. RNDr. Vladimír Kováč, CSc. Počet AH 19 AH Náklad online Vydalo Vydavateľstvo otvorenej vedy, Centrum vedecko-technických
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock of the Credibility Revolution: Scientific Reform 2011-Now
    1 Taking stock of the credibility revolution: Scientific reform 2011-now Coordinated by Gilad Feldman ([email protected]) at University of Hong Kong psychology department. This is shared under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) This is an open collaborative book. If you wish to help develop this book, visit: https://tinyurl.com/replicationcrisissummary2019 or contact the coordinator. 2 Team The book was written by the PSYC2020 Fundamentals of Social Psychology course undergraduate students. Each of the chapters details contributors for that chapter. Coordinator: Gilad Feldman [email protected], University of Hong Kong, http://giladfeldman.org, @giladfeldman Advisors: Boley Cheng [email protected] Myrte Louise Druyvesteyn [email protected] Bill Jiaxin Shi [email protected] Mira Ziqing Yao [email protected] Reviewers: Yeung Siu Kit (Wilson) Email: [email protected] Xiao Qinyu Email: [email protected] 3 Contents 1 - Realization of a problem .......................................................................................................................... 8 Team names and contribution .................................................................................................................. 8 Managerial Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 In Depth Report......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “Statcheck”: Automatically Detect Statistical Reporting Inconsistencies to Increase Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses
    Tilburg University “statcheck” Nuijten, Michèle; Polanin, Joshua Published in: Research Synthesis Methods DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1408 Publication date: 2020 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Nuijten, M., & Polanin, J. (2020). “statcheck”: Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(5), 574-579. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1408 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 25. sep. 2021 Received: 13 August 2019 Revised: 24 January 2020 Accepted: 26 March 2020 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1408 COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS AND METHODS “statcheck”: Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses Michèle B. Nuijten1 | Joshua R. Polanin2 1The Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The We present the R package and web app statcheck to automatically detect statis- Netherlands tical reporting inconsistencies in primary studies and meta-analyses.
    [Show full text]