Aird, F., Kandela, I., Mantis, C., et al. (2017). Replication study: BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-myc. Elife, 6, e21253.
Article
Google Scholar
Akerib, D. S., Alsum, S., Araújo, H. M., Bai, X., Bailey, A. J., Balajthy, J., et al. (2017). Results from a search for dark matter in the complete lux exposure. Physical Review Letters, 118, 021303.
Article
Google Scholar
Allen, C., & Mehler, D. M. A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology, 17, e3000246.
Article
Google Scholar
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
Article
Google Scholar
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666–678.
Article
Google Scholar
Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in human research: Ten pivotal points. New York: Pergamon Press Inc.
Google Scholar
Bello, S., Krogsbøll, L. T., Gruber, J., Zhao, Z. J., Fischer, D., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2014). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors in animal model experiments implies risk of bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 973–983.
Article
Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., et al. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 6–10.
Article
Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2015). I fooled millions into thinking chocolate helps weight loss. Here’s how. (Blog No. May 27). http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.
Browne, M. (2000). Cross-validation methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 108–132.
Article
Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2018). Evaluating replicability of social science experiments in nature and science. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 637–644.
Article
Google Scholar
Carp, J. (2012). On the plurality of (methodological) worlds: Estimating the analytic flexibility of fMRI experiments. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 149.
Article
Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at cortex. Cortex, 49, 609–610.
Article
Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D. (2015). Ten reasons why journals must review manuscripts before results are known. Addiction, 110, 10–11.
Article
Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Book
Google Scholar
Conley, A., Goldhaber, G., Wan, L., Aldering, G., Amanullah, R., & Commins, E. D. (2006). The Supernova Cosmology Project. Measurement of \(\omega \)m, \(\omega \lambda \) from a blind analysis of type Ia supernovae with CMAGIC: Using color information to verify the acceleration of the universe. The Astrophysical Journal, 644, 1–20.
Article
Google Scholar
Cramer, A. O. J., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P. P. P., et al. (2016). Hidden multiplicity in multiway ANOVA: Prevalence, consequences, and remedies. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 640–647.
Article
Google Scholar
De Groot, A. D. (2014). The meaning of “significance” for different types of research. Translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han L. J. van der Maas. Acta Psychologica, 148, 188–194.
Article
Google Scholar
De Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton.
Book
Google Scholar
de Molière, L., & Harris, A. J. L. (2016). Conceptual and direct replications fail to support the stake-likelihood hypothesis as an explanation for the interdependence of utility and likelihood judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, e13.
Article
Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Article
Google Scholar
Dunnington, F. G. (1937). A determination of e/m for an electron by a new deflection method. II. Physical Review, 52, 475–501.
Article
Google Scholar
Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Ly, A., Matzke, D., Pedroni, A., Frey, R., et al. (2017). A test of the diffusion model explanation for the worst performance rule using preregistration and blinding. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 713–725.
Article
Google Scholar
Eerland, A., Sherrill, A. M., Magliano, J. P., & Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Registered replication report: Hart & Albarracín (2011). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 158–171.
Article
Google Scholar
Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology. PLoS One, 11, e0149794.
Article
Google Scholar
Feynman, R. (1998). The meaning of it all: Thoughts of a citizen-scientist. New York: Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Google Scholar
Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S. D., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., et al. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 17538–17542.
Article
Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465.
Article
Google Scholar
Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.
Google Scholar
Gøtzsche, P. C. (1996). Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts. Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 285–290.
Article
Google Scholar
Harris, C. R., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2013). Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects. PLoS One, 8, e72467.
Article
Google Scholar
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002106.
Article
Google Scholar
Heinrich, J. G. (2003). Benefits of blind analysis techniques. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved November 14, 2019 from https://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/statistics/notes/cdf6576_blind.pdf.
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999). Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science, 14, 382–417.
Article
Google Scholar
Holman, L., Head, M. L., Lanfear, R., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: We need blind data recording. PLOS Biology, 13, e1002190.
Article
Google Scholar
Horrigan, S. K., Courville, P., Sampey, D., Zhou, F., Cai, S., et al. (2017). Replication study: Melanoma genome sequencing reveals frequent prex2 mutations. Elife, 6, e21634.
Article
Google Scholar
Hróbjartsson, A., Thomsen, A. S. S., Emanuelsson, F., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., Boutron, I., et al. (2012). Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: Systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ, 344, e1119.
Article
Google Scholar
Hróbjartsson, A., Thomsen, A. S. S., Emanuelsson, F., Tendal, B., Rasmussen, J. V., Hilden, J., et al. (2014). Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: Systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43, 937–948.
Article
Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.
Google Scholar
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.
Article
Google Scholar
Klein, J. R., & Roodman, A. (2005). Blind analysis in nuclear and particle physics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 55, 141–163.
Article
Google Scholar
Klein, R., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B., Adams, R., Alper, S., et al. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across sample and setting. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 443–490.
Article
Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832.
Article
Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. S., Simons, D. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2016). Research preregistration 101. APS Observer, 29(10), 14–16.
Google Scholar
MacCoun, R., & Perlmutter, S. (2015). Hide results to seek the truth. Nature, 526, 187–189.
Article
Google Scholar
MacCoun, R., & Perlmutter, S. (2017). Blind analysis as a correction for confirmatory bias in physics and in psychology. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 297–321). Hoboken: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Marsman, M., Schönbrodt, F., Morey, R. D., Yao, Y., Gelman, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2017). A Bayesian bird’s eye view of “replications of important results in social psychology”. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160426.
Article
Google Scholar
Matzke, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., van Rijn, H., Slagter, H. A., van der Molen, M. W., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). The effect of horizontal eye movements on free recall: A preregistered adversarial collaboration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e1–e15.
Article
Google Scholar
Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., et al. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16.
Article
Google Scholar
Miller, L. E., & Stewart, M. E. (2011). The blind leading the blind: Use and misuse of blinding in randomized controlled trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32, 240–243.
Article
Google Scholar
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, e1–e37.
Article
Google Scholar
Moher, J., Lakshmanan, B. M., Egeth, H. E., & Ewen, J. B. (2014). Inhibition drives early feature-based attention. Psychological Science, 25, 315–324.
Article
Google Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.
Article
Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.
Article
Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141.
Article
Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, p. aac4716.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.
Article
Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Science Monthly, 13, 470–482.
Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1883). A theory of probable inference. In C. S. Peirce (Ed.), Studies in logic (pp. 126–181). Boston: Little and Brown.
Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., et al. (2017). Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neuroimag-ing research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 115–126.
Article
Google Scholar
Resnik, J., & Curtis, D. (2016). Why eyes? Cautionary tales from law’s blindfolded justice. In C. T. Robertson & A. S. Kesselheim (Eds.), Blinding as a solution to bias: Strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law (pp. 226–247). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Robertson, C. T., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2016). Blinding as a solution to bias: Strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research (pp. 7, 62). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rouder, J. N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 301–308.
Article
Google Scholar
Sainz, A., Bigelow, N., & Barwise, C. (1957). On a methodology for the clinical evaluation of phrenopraxic drugs. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 31, 10–16.
Article
Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Blinding in randomised trials: Hiding who got what. The Lancet, 359, 696–700.
Article
Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R., Newell, B. R., Lee, E. H., Balakrishnan, D., Ekelund, L., Cenac, Z., et al. (2013). Priming intelligent behavior: An elusive phenomenon. PLoS One, 8, e56515.
Article
Google Scholar
Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18, 803–809.
Article
Google Scholar
Silberzahn, R., Uhlmann, E. L., Martin, D. P., Anselmi, P., Aust, F., Awtrey, E., et al. (2018). Many analysts, one data set: Making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 337–356.
Article
Google Scholar
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.
Article
Google Scholar
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 702–712.
Article
Google Scholar
Stefan, A. M., Gronau, Q. F., Schonbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). A tutorial on Bayes factor design analysis using an informed prior. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1042–1058.
Article
Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., McMillan, B. D., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Is playing video games related to cognitive abilities? Psychological Science, 26, 759–774.
Article
Google Scholar
van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Vollebregt, M. A., Slaats-Willemse, D., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2013). A randomized placebo-controlled trial of electroencephalographic (EEG) neurofeedback in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, 821–827.
Article
Google Scholar
van ’t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology—a discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12.
Article
Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Acosta, A., Adams, R., et al. (2016). Registered replication report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 917–928.
Article
Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Brown, S. D. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830–841.
Article
Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 627–633.
Article
Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1100–1122.
Article
Google Scholar