**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
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.