US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
about
A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too)Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific AdvertisingNo Effect of Weight on Judgments of Importance in the Moral Domain and Evidence of Publication Bias from a Meta-AnalysisPublication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impactPublication bias in psychology: a diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample sizeMeta-assessment of bias in scienceResearchers' Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century.Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good signCerebellar volume in schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder with and without psychotic features.Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysisMisconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions.Questionable research practices among italian research psychologistsOn the persistence of low power in psychological scienceSignificance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions.Is Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) an evidence-based drug and violence prevention program? A review and reappraisal of the evaluation studies.Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.We need more research on causes and consequences, as well as on solutions.Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?How to Conduct and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics Hype?Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research.Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research.The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant.Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway.Psychology's Replication Crisis and the Grant Culture: Righting the Ship.Promoting reproducibility in addiction research.Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework.Report the awful truth!Questionable research practices in student final theses - Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudesUS behavioural research studies skew positive
P2860
Q24273251-F566521A-B0BC-44A1-B1A2-EB497FC3616EQ24273319-E7582F8D-D283-48B6-B684-5C482557F123Q24288654-96D3BDB1-421C-4996-9591-B286EF60054DQ24289398-46255AF3-EE24-467C-86F1-DF3D6F665465Q28597772-3C1F1FEF-024A-4C14-8839-8FC89F44FD30Q28655986-CE127B2C-162C-471B-917E-C518A6B372F6Q29032830-79F677B6-DA35-433C-B984-334D203DE21DQ30385483-DF876852-6842-4D86-9FB1-E57F5FCECD6EQ35060121-9FE8DBB0-86B4-4C87-93F0-ADD1C0D33053Q35085159-643FDD69-D777-4992-8C35-10230B0D2D51Q35158628-3763C773-F837-44FF-B34D-CA25FA0797FEQ35665984-7570EA8F-3121-4595-9C50-C0A509EA5431Q35983635-80C14C7D-D750-4658-9B25-BD52FDF7B02EQ36309082-D6B49B70-594F-48E1-BBB0-58F50F82E614Q37126950-D5FCCAD4-4DF9-4277-8749-46884F508A45Q37130633-BC048E3D-4A1E-412B-8487-409A41399087Q38206162-8AF74498-0799-45C0-8B16-4C1BDF7C2C30Q38263435-13750D1D-BA26-48BD-AEB0-3580DA67580BQ38291098-0FB02DB7-1801-4EC5-8C08-B09D4460FF6DQ38337654-476BA657-92AA-46F6-8503-1587C6A6957FQ38682425-D677826F-6E42-4301-AD05-6A7F8D05F56CQ38819374-F82EE8A2-9718-45B9-AF59-6FD3F8CB00BAQ42432494-90DD7967-AFA0-43D6-9542-057CDBC90724Q42432523-A0A5056A-E83D-4F34-A8CB-074CBD84BDB3Q47330098-7CE1032E-F745-48B8-90D1-849B570A9DB1Q47974408-909DAED3-035B-456D-B3AB-84AF9F36F57BQ50524642-E17DEF14-F8E5-4CA2-994A-C75E65A926E6Q52313130-1C3899AB-32B2-42B1-B8D4-123F5EE007D8Q52314966-5BF29577-28F0-44FE-A76E-046C72D7779EQ53127407-F72991A8-62BA-4686-B491-3B6D361F431AQ57166783-778679DD-F218-469F-9974-C106B83416C6Q74438477-1B2C1CBF-6666-4186-A89C-758C16C8CBC8
P2860
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
description
2013 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2013 թուականի Սեպտեմբերին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2013 թվականի սեպտեմբերին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2013年の論文
@ja
2013年論文
@yue
2013年論文
@zh-hant
2013年論文
@zh-hk
2013年論文
@zh-mo
2013年論文
@zh-tw
2013年论文
@wuu
name
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@ast
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en-gb
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@nl
type
label
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@ast
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en-gb
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@nl
prefLabel
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@ast
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en-gb
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@nl
P2860
P3181
P356
P1476
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
@en
P2860
P304
P3181
P356
10.1073/PNAS.1302997110
P407
P577
2013-09-10T00:00:00Z