| 1. |
- Botvinik-Nezer, Rotem, et al.
(författare)
-
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 582, s. 84-88
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Data analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. Here we assess the effect of this flexibility on the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging by asking 70 independent teams to analyse the same dataset, testing the same 9 ex-ante hypotheses(1). The flexibility of analytical approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyse the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in the results of hypothesis tests, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of the analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Notably, a meta-analytical approach that aggregated information across teams yielded a significant consensus in activated regions. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset(2-5). Our findings show that analytical flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and identify factors that may be related to variability in the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for performing and reporting multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches that could be used to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed. The results obtained by seventy different teams analysing the same functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of analytical choices and the importance of sharing workflows publicly and performing multiple analyses.
|
|
| 2. |
- Aczel, Balazs, et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting multi-analyst studies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: eLIFE. - : eLife Sciences Publications. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bishop, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Are replication rates the same across academic fields? Community forecasts from the DARPA SCORE programme
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Royal Society Open Science. - : Royal Society, The: Open Access / Royal Society. - 2054-5703. ; 7:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme 'Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence' (SCORE) aims to generate confidence scores for a large number of research claims from empirical studies in the social and behavioural sciences. The confidence scores will provide a quantitative assessment of how likely a claim will hold up in an independent replication. To create the scores, we follow earlier approaches and use prediction markets and surveys to forecast replication outcomes. Based on an initial set of forecasts for the overall replication rate in SCORE and its dependence on the academic discipline and the time of publication, we show that participants expect replication rates to increase over time. Moreover, they expect replication rates to differ between fields, with the highest replication rate in economics (average survey response 58%), and the lowest in psychology and in education (average survey response of 42% for both fields). These results reveal insights into the academic community's views of the replication crisis, including for research fields for which no large-scale replication studies have been undertaken yet.
|
|
| 4. |
- Brütt, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 1091-6490 .- 0027-8424. ; 120:23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.
|
|
| 5. |
- Gordon, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Royal Society Open Science. - : Royal Society, The: Open Access / Royal Society. - 2054-5703. ; 9:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many publications on COVID-19 were released on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. It is unknown how reliable these preprints are, and which ones will eventually be published in scientific journals. In this study, we use crowdsourced human forecasts to predict publication outcomes and future citation counts for a sample of 400 preprints with high Altmetric score. Most of these preprints were published within 1 year of upload on a preprint server (70%), with a considerable fraction (45%) appearing in a high-impact journal with a journal impact factor of at least 10. On average, the preprints received 162 citations within the first year. We found that forecasters can predict if preprints will be published after 1 year and if the publishing journal has high impact. Forecasts are also informative with respect to Google Scholar citations within 1 year of upload on a preprint server. For both types of assessment, we found statistically significant positive correlations between forecasts and observed outcomes. While the forecasts can help to provide a preliminary assessment of preprints at a faster pace than traditional peer-review, it remains to be investigated if such an assessment is suited to identify methodological problems in preprints.
|
|
| 6. |
- Holzmeister, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Delegation Decisions in Finance
- 2020
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- We run an online experiment with finance professionals and subjects from the general population (clients) to examine drivers and implications of clients' delegation decisions. We find that clients favor delegation to investment algorithms, followed by delegation to finance professionals with aligned incentives and lastly to those with fixed incentives. We also show that trust in investment algorithms or money managers (finance professionals), respectively, and clients' propensity to shift blame on others increases the likelihood of delegation, whereas own decision-making quality is associated with a decrease. In measuring the implications of clients' delegation decisions, we report high variability among finance professionals' perceptions of clients' preferred risk levels. We show that this results in overlaps in portfolio risk across risk-levels of clients, indicating problems of risk communication between clients and their money managers.
|
|
| 7. |
- Holzmeister, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Delegation Decisions in Finance
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Management Science. - : Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). - 0025-1909 .- 1526-5501. ; 69:8, s. 4828-4844
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Based on an online experimentwith a sample of finance professionals and participants from the general population (acting as clients), we examine drivers and motives of clients' choices to delegate investment decisions to agents.We find that clients favor delegation to investment algorithms, followed by delegation to finance professionals compensated with an aligned incentive scheme, and lastly to finance professionals receiving a fixed payment for investing on behalf of others. We show that trust in investment algorithms or finance professionals, and clients' propensity to shift blame on others increase the likelihood of delegation, whereas clients' own decision-making quality is associated with a decrease in delegation frequency.
|
|
| 8. |
- Holzmeister, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Heterogeneity in effect size estimates : Empirical evidence and practical implications
- 2023
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- A typical empirical study involves choosing a sample, a research design, and an analysis path. Variation in such choices across studies leads to heterogeneity in results that introduce an additional layer of uncertainty not accounted for in reported standard errors and confidence intervals. We provide a framework for studying heterogeneity in the social sciences and divide heterogeneity into population heterogeneity, design heterogeneity, and analytical heterogeneity. We estimate each type's heterogeneity from multi-lab replication studies, prospective meta-analyses of studies varying experimental designs, and multi-analyst studies. Our results suggest that population heterogeneity tends to be relatively small, whereas design and analytical heterogeneity are large. A conservative interpretation of the estimates suggests that incorporating the uncertainty due to heterogeneity would approximately double sample standard errors and confidence intervals. We illustrate that heterogeneity of this magnitude — unless properly accounted for —has severe implications for statistical inference with strongly increased rates of false scientific claims.
|
|
| 9. |
- McCarthy, Randy J., et al.
(författare)
-
Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : SAGE Publications Inc. - 2515-2459 .- 2515-2467. ; 1:3, s. 321-336
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.
|
|
| 10. |
- Menkveld, Albert J., et al.
(författare)
-
Non-Standard Errors
- 2021
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.
|
|
