| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Huntington-Klein, Nick, et al.
(författare)
-
Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Royal Society Open Science. - : The Royal Society. - 2054-5703 .- 2054-5703. ; 11:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many-analysts studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same dataset by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g. effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a dataset, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item subjective evidence evaluation survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous many-analysts study.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Uhlmann, Eric, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey For Multi-Analyst Studies
- 2024
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Multi-analyst studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same data set by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g., effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a data set, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous multi-analyst study.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rohrer, Julia M., et al.
(författare)
-
Putting the Self in Self-Correction : Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : Sage Publications. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 16:6, s. 1255-1269
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.
|
|
