issues_with_research_readings

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
issues_with_research_readings [2018/01/22 20:10]
filination
issues_with_research_readings [2018/08/05 20:05] (current)
filination
Line 24: Line 24:
   * [[http://​www.smh.com.au/​national/​health/​psychology-in-crisis-as-seminal-studies-are-unable-to-be-replicated-20170530-gwg9xh.html|Psychology in crisis as seminal studies are unable to be replicated]] (Sydney morning herald, 2017)   * [[http://​www.smh.com.au/​national/​health/​psychology-in-crisis-as-seminal-studies-are-unable-to-be-replicated-20170530-gwg9xh.html|Psychology in crisis as seminal studies are unable to be replicated]] (Sydney morning herald, 2017)
   * [[https://​thewire.in/​208014/​replication-crisis-science/​|The Replication Crisis in Science]] (The Wire, 2017)   * [[https://​thewire.in/​208014/​replication-crisis-science/​|The Replication Crisis in Science]] (The Wire, 2017)
 +  * [[http://​www.slate.com/​articles/​health_and_science/​science/​2014/​07/​replication_controversy_in_psychology_bullying_file_drawer_effect_blog_posts.html|Why Psychologists’ Food Fight Matters]] (Slate, 2018)
  
 Great summaries: Great summaries:
Line 99: Line 100:
   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0109019|The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power]] (PLOSOne, 2014) ([[https://​osf.io/​7im3n/​|Data]])   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0109019|The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power]] (PLOSOne, 2014) ([[https://​osf.io/​7im3n/​|Data]])
   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0114876|Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science]] (PLOSOne, 2014)   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0114876|Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science]] (PLOSOne, 2014)
 +  * [[http://​www.mdpi.com/​2076-328X/​7/​3/​53/​htm|Four Bad Habits of Modern Psychologists]] (BS, 2018)
 +  * [[https://​www.frontiersin.org/​articles/​10.3389/​fnhum.2018.00037/​full|Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability]] (Brembs, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2018)
  
 Economics: Economics:
Line 106: Line 109:
   * [[http://​onlinelibrary.wiley.com/​doi/​10.1111/​ecoj.12527/​abstract?​campaign=woletoc|To Replicate or Not To Replicate? Exploring Reproducibility in Economics through the Lens of a Model and a Pilot Study]] (The Economic Journal, 2017)   * [[http://​onlinelibrary.wiley.com/​doi/​10.1111/​ecoj.12527/​abstract?​campaign=woletoc|To Replicate or Not To Replicate? Exploring Reproducibility in Economics through the Lens of a Model and a Pilot Study]] (The Economic Journal, 2017)
   * [[https://​www.bloomberg.com/​view/​articles/​2017-11-27/​the-economics-data-revolution-has-growing-pains|The Economics Data Revolution Has Growing Pains Too many studies use small sample sizes that give false positives]] (Bloomberg, 2017)   * [[https://​www.bloomberg.com/​view/​articles/​2017-11-27/​the-economics-data-revolution-has-growing-pains|The Economics Data Revolution Has Growing Pains Too many studies use small sample sizes that give false positives]] (Bloomberg, 2017)
 +  * [[http://​www.pnas.org/​content/​early/​2018/​03/​08/​1802324115|Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies]] (PNAS, 2018) SPECIAL ISSUE
  
  
Line 111: Line 115:
   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0175635|Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research]] (PLOSone, 2017)   * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0175635|Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research]] (PLOSone, 2017)
   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1476127017701076|Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings]] (Strategic Organization,​ 2017)   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1476127017701076|Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings]] (Strategic Organization,​ 2017)
 +  * [[https://​www.the-scientist.com/​features/​replication-failures-highlight-biases-in-ecology-and-evolution-science-64475#​.W2R8S_JdBdk.twitter|Replication Failures Highlight Biases in Ecology and Evolution Science]]
  
  
Line 135: Line 140:
   * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com/​doi/​full/​10.1080/​01621459.2016.1240079|On the reproducibility of psychological science]] (Journal of the American Statistical Association,​ 2016) - it's actually more like 90% didn't replicate   * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com/​doi/​full/​10.1080/​01621459.2016.1240079|On the reproducibility of psychological science]] (Journal of the American Statistical Association,​ 2016) - it's actually more like 90% didn't replicate
   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1745691617690042|It’s Time to Broaden the Replicability Conversation:​ Thoughts for and From Clinical Psychological Science]] (PPS, 2017)   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1745691617690042|It’s Time to Broaden the Replicability Conversation:​ Thoughts for and From Clinical Psychological Science]] (PPS, 2017)
 +  * [[https://​politicalsciencereplication.wordpress.com/​2013/​03/​08/​only-18-of-120-political-science-journals-have-a-replication-policy/​|ONLY 18 OF 120 POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNALS HAVE A REPLICATION POLICY]]
  
 ===== psychologists don't know stats ===== ===== psychologists don't know stats =====
Line 140: Line 146:
   * [[http://​www.mdpi.com/​2076-328X/​7/​3/​53/​htm|Four Bad Habits of Modern Psychologists]] (Behavioral Sciences 2017)   * [[http://​www.mdpi.com/​2076-328X/​7/​3/​53/​htm|Four Bad Habits of Modern Psychologists]] (Behavioral Sciences 2017)
   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​zqkyt/​|Quantifying Support for the Null Hypothesis in Psychology: An Empirical Investigation]] (preprint, 2018)   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​zqkyt/​|Quantifying Support for the Null Hypothesis in Psychology: An Empirical Investigation]] (preprint, 2018)
 +  * [[https://​www.theguardian.com/​science/​2014/​jan/​19/​mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown|The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happiness]]
  
 ===== Control variables ===== ===== Control variables =====
Line 156: Line 163:
   * [[https://​peerj.com/​preprints/​3486/​|Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others]] (preprint, Peerj, 2017)   * [[https://​peerj.com/​preprints/​3486/​|Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others]] (preprint, Peerj, 2017)
  
 +===== Data availability =====
 +
 +  * [[https://​osf.io/​preprints/​bitss/​39cfb/​|Data availability,​ reusability,​ and analytic reproducibility:​ Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition]] (preprint, 2018)
 +  * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosone/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pone.0201856|Populating the Data Ark: An attempt to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from the most highly-cited psychology and psychiatry articles]] (PLOSOne, 2018)
  
 ====== Summary presentations ====== ====== Summary presentations ======
Line 183: Line 194:
   * [[https://​faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/​wp-content/​uploads/​2016/​12/​Guidelines-for-science-389-Clean.pdf|Guidelines for Science:​Evidence and Checklists]] (working paper, look for the final version when it's out)   * [[https://​faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/​wp-content/​uploads/​2016/​12/​Guidelines-for-science-389-Clean.pdf|Guidelines for Science:​Evidence and Checklists]] (working paper, look for the final version when it's out)
   * [[https://​www.nature.com/​articles/​d41586-017-07522-z|Five ways to fix statistics]]   * [[https://​www.nature.com/​articles/​d41586-017-07522-z|Five ways to fix statistics]]
 +  * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​rtygm|A practical guide for transparency in psychological science]]
  
 Initiatives:​ Initiatives:​
Line 197: Line 209:
   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1745691614549257|Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science]] (PPS, 2014)   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1745691614549257|Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science]] (PPS, 2014)
   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​fuzkh|Verify Original Results through Reanalysis before Replicating]] (reply to BBS, 2018)   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​fuzkh|Verify Original Results through Reanalysis before Replicating]] (reply to BBS, 2018)
 +  * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​6ka9z|Psychological Science needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of cognitive behavioural measurements]] (preprint, 2018)
  
  
Line 214: Line 227:
   * [[https://​osf.io/​preprints/​psyarxiv/​fcxge/​|Benefits of Open and High-Powered Research Outweigh Costs]] (JPSP, 2017)   * [[https://​osf.io/​preprints/​psyarxiv/​fcxge/​|Benefits of Open and High-Powered Research Outweigh Costs]] (JPSP, 2017)
   * [[https://​osf.io/​preprints/​psyarxiv/​nnkg9|Too True to be Bad: When Sets of Studies with Significant and Non-Significant Findings Are Probably True]] (Lakens & Etz, 2017)   * [[https://​osf.io/​preprints/​psyarxiv/​nnkg9|Too True to be Bad: When Sets of Studies with Significant and Non-Significant Findings Are Probably True]] (Lakens & Etz, 2017)
 +    * something similar - The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles ([[https://​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pubmed/​22924598|article]] / [[https://​replicationindex.wordpress.com/​2018/​02/​18/​why-most-multiple-study-articles-are-false-an-introduction-to-the-magic-index/​|blog post]])
   * [[http://​deevybee.blogspot.com/​2017/​05/​reproducible-practices-are-future-for.html|Reproducible practices are the future for early career researchers]] (Bishopblog)   * [[http://​deevybee.blogspot.com/​2017/​05/​reproducible-practices-are-future-for.html|Reproducible practices are the future for early career researchers]] (Bishopblog)
   * [[https://​www.nature.com/​articles/​s41559-017-0160|Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools]] (nature ecology & evolution, 2017)   * [[https://​www.nature.com/​articles/​s41559-017-0160|Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools]] (nature ecology & evolution, 2017)
   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​7wkdn|Transparent science: A more credible, reproducible,​ and publishable way to do science]] (preprint, 2018)   * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​7wkdn|Transparent science: A more credible, reproducible,​ and publishable way to do science]] (preprint, 2018)
 +  * [[https://​psyarxiv.com/​2yphf/​|Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity,​ Creativity, and Progress]] (Simine Vazire, PPS, 2018)
 +  * [[http://​journals.plos.org/​plosbiology/​article?​id=10.1371/​journal.pbio.1002128|Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm]] (PLOSOne, 2018)
 +  * [[http://​www.willem.maartenfrankenhuis.nl/​wp-content/​uploads/​2016/​09/​Frankenhuis-Nettle-in-press-Open-Science-for-PPS.pdf|Open Science is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity]] (PPS, 2018)
  
  
Line 256: Line 273:
   * [[http://​willgervais.com/​blog/​2017/​3/​2/​post-publication-peer-review|Post publication peer review 2017 - Will Gervais on his own Science article]]   * [[http://​willgervais.com/​blog/​2017/​3/​2/​post-publication-peer-review|Post publication peer review 2017 - Will Gervais on his own Science article]]
   * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​publication/​278082978_The_Replication_Paradox_Combining_Studies_can_Decrease_Accuracy_of_Effect_Size_Estimates|The Replication Paradox: Combining Studies can Decrease Accuracy of Effect Size Estimates]] (Review of General Psychology,​2015)   * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​publication/​278082978_The_Replication_Paradox_Combining_Studies_can_Decrease_Accuracy_of_Effect_Size_Estimates|The Replication Paradox: Combining Studies can Decrease Accuracy of Effect Size Estimates]] (Review of General Psychology,​2015)
 +  * [[https://​www.nature.com/​articles/​d41586-018-02108-9|How to make replication the norm]] (Nature, 2018)
  
 Satire: Satire:
  • issues_with_research_readings.1516677024.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2018/01/22 20:10
  • by filination