Corrigendum: Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results(Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, (2018), 1, (337–356), 10.1177/2515245917747646);Many analysts, one data set: Making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 337-356

  Silberzahn, R ^a   Uhlmann, E L ^b   Martin, D P ^c   Anselmi, P ^d   Aust, F ^e   Awtrey, E ^f   Bahnik S ^g   Bai, F ^h   Bannard, C ⁱ   Bonnier, E ^j   Carlsson, R ^k   Cheung, F ^l   Christensen, G ^m   Clay, R ⁿ   Craig, M A ^o   Rosa, A Dalla ^d   Dam, L ^p   Evans, M H ^q   Cervantes, I Flores ^r   Fong, N ^s   Gamez Djokic, M ^t   Glenz, A ^u   Gordon Mckeon, S ^v   Heaton, T J ^w   Hederos, K ^x   Heene, M ^y   Hofelich Mohr, A J ^z   Hogden F ^e   Hui, K ^aa   Johannesson, M ^j   Kalodimos, J ^ab   Kaszubowski, E ^ac   Kennedy, D M ^ad   Lei, R ^o   Lindsay, T A ^z   Liverani, S ^ae   Madan, C R ^af   Molden, D ^ag   Molleman, E ^p   Morey, R D ^ah   Mulder, L B ^p   Nijstad, B R ^p   Pope, N G ^ai   Pope, B ^aj   Prenoveau, J M ^ak   Rink, F ^p   Robusto, E ^d   Roderique, H ^al   Sandberg, A ^x   Schluter E ^am   Schonbrodt F D ^y   Sherman, M F ^ak   Sommer, S A ^an   Sotak, K ^ao   Spain, S ^ap   Sporlein C ^aq   Stafford, T ^w   Stefanutti, L ^d   Tauber, S ^p   Ullrich, J ^u   Vianello, M ^d   Wagenmakers, E J ^ar   Witkowiak, M ^v   Yoon, S ^s   Nosek, B A ^c,as   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSEAD   (Singapore)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS   (Czech Republic)

^h HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^j STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^k LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^l UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^m UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁿ CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^o NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^q UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^r WESTAT   (United States)

^s TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^t NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^u UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^v University of Sheffield ^*  (Poland)

^w UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^x STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^y UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^z UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^aa Bandar Sunsuria   (Malaysia)

^ab OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ac FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^ad School of Business University of Washington Bothell   (United States)

^ae QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^af UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^ag NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ah CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^ai UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^aj BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ak LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MARYLAND   (United States)

^al UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^am JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^an UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY   (United States)

^ao STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO   (United States)

^ap John Molson School of Business   (Canada)

^aq UNIVERSITY OF BAMBERG   (Germany)

^ar UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^as CENTER FOR OPEN SCIENCE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Crowdsourcing science; Data analysis; Open data; Open materials; Scientific transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 85116837831     PISSN: 25152459     EISSN: 25152467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2515245918810511     Document Type: Erratum

References (35)

1. Babtie, A. C., Kirk, P., & Stumpf, M. P. H. (2014). Topological sensitivity analysis for systems biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 18507–18512. doi:10.1073/pnas.1414026112
2. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. doi:10.1177/1745 691612459060
3. Benjamin, D., Berger, J., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., … Johnson, V. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/mky9j
4. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726–737. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726
5. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Converting among effect sizes. In Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 45–50). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
6. Carp, J. (2012a). On the plurality of (methodological) worlds: Estimating the analytic flexibility of fMRI experiments. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, Article 149. doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00149
7. Carp, J. (2012b). The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature. NeuroImage, 63, 289– 300. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.004
8. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314–1329. doi:10.1037/00223514.83.6.1314
9. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
10. Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., … Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82.
11. Ebrahim, S., Sohani, Z. N., Montoya, L., Agarwal, A., Thorlund, K., Mills, E. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2014). Reanalyses of randomized clinical trial data. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312, 1024–1032. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9646
12. Frank, M. G., & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of selfand social perception: Black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 74–85.
13. Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465.
14. Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640–643. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x
15. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, Article 63. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
16. Johnson, V. E. (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 19313–19317.
17. Kim, J. W., & King, B. G. (2014). Seeing stars: Matthew effects and status bias in Major League Baseball umpiring. Management Science, 60, 2619–2644. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1967
18. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., … Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152.
19. Krumholz, H. M., & Peterson, E. D. (2014). Open access to clinical trials data. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312, 1002–1003. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9647
20. Maddox, K. B., & Chase, S. G. (2004). Manipulating subcategory salience: Exploring the link between skin tone and social perception of Blacks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 533–546. doi:10.1002/ejsp.214
21. Maddox, K. B., & Gray, S. A. (2002). Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 250–259. doi:10.1177/0146167202282010
22. McCullough, B. D., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. D. (2006). Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Canadian Journal of Economics, 41, 1406–1420. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.00509.x
23. Parsons, C. A., Sulaeman, J., Yates, M. C., & Hamermesh, D. S. (2011). Strike three: Discrimination, incentives, and evaluation. American Economic Review, 101, 1410–1435.
24. Price, J., & Wolfers, J. (2010). Racial discrimination among NBA referees. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1859–1887.
25. Sakaluk, J. K., Williams, A. J., & Biernat, M. (2014). Analytic review as a solution to the misreporting of statistical results in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 652–660. doi:10.1177/1745691614549257
26. Sidanius, J., Pena, Y., & Sawyer, M. (2001). Inclusionary discrimination: Pigmentocracy and patriotism in the Dominican Republic. Political Psychology, 22, 827–851. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00264
27. Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24, 1875–1888.
28. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.
29. Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J., & Nelson, L. (2016). Specification curve: Descriptive and inferential statistics for all plausible specifications. Unpublished manuscript, Operations, Information and Decisions Department, University of Pennsylvania.
30. 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, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
31. Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 702–712.
32. Twine, F. W. (1998). Racism in a racial democracy: The maintenance of White supremacy in Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
33. Viera, A. J. (2008). Odds ratios and risk ratios: What’s the difference and why does it matter? Southern Medical Journal, 101, 730–734. doi:10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31817 a7ee4
34. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638. doi:10.1177/1745691612463078
35. Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726–728. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726