The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Giofrè, David ^a   Cumming, Geoff ^b   Fresc, Luca ^c   Boedker, Ingrid ^d   Tressoldi, Patrizio ^c  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NULL HYPOTHESIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85017533169     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175583     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Pashler H, Wagenmakers EJ. Editors' introduction to the special section on rseplicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov 1; 7(6):528-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253 PMID: 26168108
2. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (80-). 2015 Aug 28; 349(6251):aac4716-aac4716.
3. Banks GC, O'Boyle EH, Pollack JM, White CD, Batchelor JH, Whelpley CE, et al. Questions about Questionable Research Practices in the field of management. J Manage. 2016 Jan; 42(1):5-20.
4. Banks GC, Rogelberg SG, Woznyj HM, Landis RS, Rupp DE. Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. J Bus Psychol. 2016 Sep 25; 31(3):323-38.
5. Agnoli F, Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Albiero P, Cubelli R. Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists. Pietschnig J, editor. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 15; 12(3):e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792 PMID: 28296929
6. Bakker M, Wicherts JM. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods. 2011 Sep 15; 43(3):666-78. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0089-5 PMID: 21494917
7. Bakker M, Wicherts JM. Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research. Gluud LL, editor. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 29; 9(7):e103360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103360 PMID: 25072606
8. Bakker M, Wicherts JM. Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the type I error rate in independent samples t tests: The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2014; 19 (3):409-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000014 PMID: 24773354
9. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23(5):524-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 PMID: 22508865
10. Asendorpf JB, Conner M, De Fruyt F, De Houwer J, Denissen JJA, Fiedler K, et al. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur J Pers. 2013 Mar; 27(2):108-19.
11. van Assen MALM, van Aert RCM, Nuijten MB, Wicherts JM. Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results. Wray KB, editor. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 17; 9 (1):e84896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 PMID: 24465448
12. 7Veldkamp CLS, Nuijten MB, Dominguez-Alvarez L, van Assen MALM, Wicherts JM. Statistical reporting errors and collaboration on statistical analyses in Psychological Science. Courvoisier DS, editor. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 10; 9(12):e114876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114876 PMID: 25493918
13. Ferguson CJ, Heene M. A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov 1; 7(6):555-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059 PMID: 26168112
14. Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug 30; 2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PMID: 16060722
15. Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Neuroscience How Neuroeconomics: Economics Inform Can. 2012; 43(1):9-64.
16. Trafimow D, Marks M. Editorial. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2015 Jan 2; 37(1):1-2.
17. Cumming G. The New Statistics: Why and How. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan 1; 25(1):7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966 PMID: 24220629
18. Wagenmakers E, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HLJ. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 100 (3):426-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 PMID: 21280965
19. Wicherts JM, Bakker M. Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence. Elsevier Inc.; 2012 Mar; 40(2):73-6.
20. Sijtsma K. Playing with Data - Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right. Psychometrika. 2016 Mar 28; 81(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0 PMID: 25820980
21. APA. Manual of the American Psychological Association. 6th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association (APA); 2010.
22. American Psychologist. Manuscript submission. 2016;Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/am.
23. Eich E. Business Not as Usual. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan 1; 25(1):3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613512465 PMID: 24285431
24. Psychological Science. Istructions for authors. 2016.: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publ.
25. Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg L-S, et al. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. Macleod MR, editor. PLOS Biol. 2016 May 12; 14(5):e1002456. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456 PMID: 27171007
26. Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CHJ, Assen MALM van, Epskamp S, Wicherts JM. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985-2013). Behav Res Methods. Behavior Research Methods; 2015; (2011):1-22.
27. Vankov I, Bowers J, Munafò MR. On the persistence of low power in psychological science. Q J Exp Psychol. 2014 May 4; 67(5):1037-40.
28. Finch, S., Cumming, G., Williams, J., Palmer, L., Griffith, E., Alders, C., et al. Reform of statistical inference in psychology: The case of Memory & Cognition. Behav Res Methods; 2015; 36:312-324
29. Tishkovskaya S, Lancaster GA. Statistical education in the 21st century: A review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform. J Stat Educ. 2012; 20:1-55.
30. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science (80-). 2015 Jun 26; 348(6242):1422-5.
31. Aleksic J, Alexa A, Attwood TK, Chue Hong N, Dahlö M, Davey R, et al. An Open Science Peer Review Oath. F1000Research. 2015 Jan 9
32. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Instructions for Authors. 2016;http://www.springer.com/psychology/cognitive+psych.
33. Tressoldi PE, Giofrè D. The pervasive avoidance of prospective statistical power: Major consequences and practical solutions. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00726 PMID: 26074863
34. Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. Tractenberg RE, editor. PLoS One. 2011 Nov 2; 6(11):e26828. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026828 PMID: 22073203
35. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol. 2006; 61(7):726-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726 PMID: 17032082
36. Vanpaemel W, Vermorgen M, Deriemaecker L, Storms G. Are We Wasting a Good Crisis? The Availability of Psychological Research Data after the Storm. Collabra. 2015 Oct 9; 1(1):1-5.
37. Krawczyk M, Reuben E. (Un)available upon request: field experiment on researchers' willingness to share supplementary materials. Account Res. 2012; 19(3):175-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.678688 PMID: 22686633