Meticulous manuscripts, messy results: Working together for robust science reporting

Stress and Health

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 89-91

  Barber, Larissa K ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; EDITORIAL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85017208634     PISSN: 15323005     EISSN: 15322998     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smi.2756     Document Type: Editorial

References (18)

1. Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 666–678. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0089-5
2. Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
3. Hagger, M. S. (2012). How to get your article rejected. Stress and Health, 28(4), 265–268 http://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2458.
4. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
5. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
6. Maner, J. K. (2014). Let's put our money where our mouth is: If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 343–351. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528215
7. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. http://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
8. Nosek, B. A. (2014). Improving my lab, my science with the open science framework. APS Observer, 27(3), Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/improving-my-lab-my-science-with-the-open-science-framework.
9. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
10. Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1205–1226. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2
11. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716 http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
12. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. (2012). Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
13. Probst, T. M., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Advancing the rigour and integrity of our science: The registered Reports initiative. Stress and Health, 31(3), 177–179. http://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2645
14. Sagarin, B. J., Ambler, J. K., & Lee, E. M. (2014). An ethical approach to peeking at data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 293–304. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528214
15. Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551–566. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029487
16. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
17. Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237–241. http://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030
18. Strube, M. J. (2006). SNOOP:A program for demonstrating the consequences of premature and repeated null hypothesis testing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 24–27.