journal data sharing policies and statistical reporting inconsistencies in psychology
Clicks: 97
ID: 250438
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
28.8
/100
97 views
15 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #25 of 25 articles by views in the american journal of medicine
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In this paper, we present three retrospective observational studies that investigate the relation between data sharing and statistical reporting inconsistencies. Previous research found that reluctance to share data was related to a higher prevalence of statistical errors, often in the direction of statistical significance (Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011). We therefore hypothesized that journal policies about data sharing and data sharing itself would reduce these inconsistencies. In Study 1, we compared the prevalence of reporting inconsistencies in two similar journals on decision making with different data sharing policies. In Study 2, we compared reporting inconsistencies in psychology articles published in PLOS journals (with a data sharing policy) and Frontiers in Psychology (without a stipulated data sharing policy). In Study 3, we looked at papers published in the journal Psychological Science to check whether papers with or without an Open Practice Badge differed in the prevalence of reporting errors. Overall, we found no relationship between data sharing and reporting inconsistencies. We did find that journal policies on data sharing seem extremely effective in promoting data sharing. We argue that open data is essential in improving the quality of psychological science, and we discuss ways to detect and reduce reporting inconsistencies in the literature.
| Reference Key |
nuijten2017collabra:journal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Michèle B. Nuijten;Jeroen Borghuis;Coosje L. S. Veldkamp;Linda Dominguez-Alvarez;Marcel A. L. M. Van Assen;Jelte M. Wicherts |
| Journal | the american journal of medicine |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.1525/collabra.102
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.