Files | Discussion Wiki | Discussion | Discussion

default Loading...



Loading wiki pages...

Wiki Version:
<p><strong>Here you will find resources that we think might be helpful for teaching replications:</strong> </p> <ul> <li> <p>Frank, M. C., & Saxe, R. (2012). Teaching replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 600-604. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460686 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R.,…Van 't Veer, A. (2014). The Replication Recipe: What Makes for a Convincing Replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76-80. doi: 10.1177/1745691613514755 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Grahe, J. E., Reifman, A., Hermann, A. D., Walker, M., Oleson, K. C., Nario-Redmond, M., & Wiebe, R. P. (2012). Harnessing the undiscovered resource of student research projects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 605-604. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459057 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 608-614. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462586 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Improving (Our) Science Syllabus <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a> (note, this needs to be adapted for CREP purposes)</p> </li> <li> <p>Syllabus for Psych 254 at Stanford - graduate-level methods class, focused on replication, taught by Mike Frank (Winter 2013) <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Articles from Improving Our Science syllabus:</strong></p> <p>Week 2:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 562-571. doi: 10.1177/1745691612457576 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>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(6), 615-631. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459058 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 3:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217-243. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific Communication Is Changing and Scientists Should Lead the Way. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 308-314. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.717907 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 5:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Email exchanges among psychological science editors and other colleagues on Poldrack et al. (2008) and Simmons et al. (2011) articles. <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological science, 23(5), 524-532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551. doi: 10.1037/a0029487 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>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(11), 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 6:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Bertamini, M., & Munafò, M. R. (2012). Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 67-71. doi: 10.1177/1745691611429353 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1. doi: 10.1037/h0076157 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Mathieu, S., Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., & Ravaud, P. (2009). Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Jama, 302(9), 977-984. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1242 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108-112. doi:10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS medicine, 5(10), e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 7</p> <ul> <li> <p>Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531-533. doi:10.1038/483531a <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. The New Yorker, 13, 52. For link search article title in Google scholar</p> </li> <li> <p>Morin, A., Urban, J., Adams, P. D., Foster, I., Sali, A., Baker, D., & Sliz, P. (2012). Shining light into black boxes. Science, 336(6078), 159-160. <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657-660. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462588 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology,13(2), 90. doi: 10.1037/a0015108 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature,470(7335), 437. doi: 10.1038/470437a <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 10:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science,334(6060), 1182-1182. doi: 10.1126/science.1216775 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just Post It The Lesson From Two Cases of Fabricated Data Detected by Statistics Alone. Psychological science, 24(10), 1875-1888. doi:10.1177/0956797613480366 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Interim report regarding the breach of scientific integrity committed by Prof. D.A. Stapel <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Francis, G. (2012). Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), E1587-E1587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203591109 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Reply to Francis: Cumulative power calculations are faulty when based on observed power and a small sample of studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), E1588-E1588. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205367109 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Francis, G. (2012). Checking the counterarguments confirms that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Francis, G. (2012). The same old New Look: Publication bias in a study of wishful seeing. i-Perception, 3(3), 176. doi: 10.1068/i0519ic <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2012). A false-positive error in search in selective reporting: A refutation of Francis. i. Perception, 3(3). </p> </li> <li> <p>Francis, G. Areas of disagreement. Or Some clarity about publication bias and wishful seeing <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 151-156. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 11:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009). The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data.Psychological methods, 14(2), 165. doi: 10.1037/a0015565 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Howard, G. S., Lau, M. Y., Maxwell, S. E., Venter, A., Lundy, R., & Sweeny, R. M. (2009). Do research literatures give correct answers?. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 116. doi: 10.1037/a0015468 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Howard, G. S., Hill, T. L., Maxwell, S. E., Baptista, T. M., Farias, M. H., Coelho, C., ... & Coulter-Kern, R. (2009). What’s wrong with research literatures? And how to make them right. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 146. doi: 10.1037/a0015319 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of consulting and clinical Psychology, 46(4), 806. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul> <p>Week 14:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Krueger, J. I. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 661-669. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462587 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Fuchs, H. M., Jenny, M., & Fiedler, S. (2012). Psychologists are open to change, yet wary of rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 639-642. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459521 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., Miller, S., Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572-584. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463704 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> <li> <p>Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in Psychology Research How Often Do They Really Occur?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537-542. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460688 <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a></p> </li> </ul>
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.