SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Madan Nikhil) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Madan Nikhil)

  • Resultat 1-3 av 3
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Schweinsberg, Martin, et al. (författare)
  • Same data, different conclusions : Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. - : Elsevier BV. - 0749-5978 .- 1095-9920. ; 165, s. 228-249
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists' gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for orga-nizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
  •  
2.
  • Graham, Jesse R., et al. (författare)
  • The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier. - 1096-0465 .- 0022-1031. ; 66, s. 55-67
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had “in the pipeline” as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed.
  •  
3.
  • Washburn, Anthony N., et al. (författare)
  • Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Scientific Data. - : Nature Research (part of Springer Nature): Fully open access journals / Nature Publishing Group. - 2052-4463. ; 3
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in  independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-3 av 3

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy