**Full show notes**
In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted from this approach, which a team of researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.
Some of the topics covered:
- Trump (of course)
- A summary of the preprint
- The GRIM test to detect inconsistencies
- The researchers that accidently administered the equivalent of 300 cups of coffee to study participants
- How do we prevent inconsistent reporting?
- 21 word solution for research transparency
- Journals mandating statistical inconsistency checks, such as 'statcheck'
Links
The pre-print
peerj.com/preprints/2748/
'The grad student that didn't say no' blog post
www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the…-never-said-no
The caffeine study
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-38744307
Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group lab handbook (see page 6 for open science practices)
www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sit…book%20161128.pdf
21 word solution
spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_26(2).pdf
Facebook page
www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/
Twitter account
www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
