Registered Reports and Replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
- … show all 0 hide
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is launching a new type of research report: Registered Reports and Replications (RRR). Here is why we are trying this experiment. APP is always interested in strengthening the reliability and validity of the results in our science. However, there has been a recent rise in concern about several pitfalls on that road. These include the following:
Publication bias: Studies that yield statistically “significant” results get published, while those that don’t stay in the file drawer. The file drawer problem makes it difficult to evaluate how replicable a finding might be. If 20 people independently run the same study, 1 will get published; in the most dire case, 1 person might run 20 experiments and publish the one that beats p < .05. This can lead to a proliferation of nonreplicable effects in the literature.
P-hacking (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011): This covers a range of dangerous practices designed to get the p-value under the magic p < .05 ...
- Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365–376. CrossRef
- Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49, 609–610. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347556
- Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5, e10068. CrossRef
- Francis, G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 975–991. CrossRef
- Fuchs, H. M., Jenny, M., & Fielder, S. (2012). Psychologists are open to change, yet wary of rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 639–642. CrossRef
- Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631. CrossRef
- Roediger, H. L., III (2012). Psychology’s woes and a partial cure: The value of replication. APS Observer, 25(2), 9, 27–29.
- Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. CrossRef
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. CrossRef
- Tressoldi, P. E. (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: Elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 218. CrossRef
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Mass, H. J. L., & Klievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638. CrossRef
- Registered Reports and Replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Volume 75, Issue 5 , pp 781-783
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors