17  References

1.
Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27(3):447-452. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.030201
2.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017;1(1):1-9. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021
3.
Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine. 2005;2(8):e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
4.
Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86(3):638-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
5.
Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015;348(6242):1422-1425. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374
6.
Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
7.
National Academies of Sciences E. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science.; 2019. doi:10.17226/25303
8.
Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345(6203):1502-1505.
9.
Simons DJ, Shoda Y, Lindsay DS. Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017;12(6):1123-1128. doi:10.1177/1745691617708630
10.
Moravcsik A. Transparency in Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications Limited; 2020.
11.
Steinle F. Stability and Replication of Experimental Results: A Historical Perspective. In: Reproducibility : Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2016. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/upenn-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4547409
12.
Glick TF, Livesey SJ, Wallis F. Routledge Revivals: Medieval Science, Technology and Medicine (2006): An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis; 2017.
13.
Zampieri F, ElMaghawry M, Zanatta A, Thiene G. Andreas Vesalius: Celebrating 500 years of dissecting nature. Global Cardiology Science & Practice. 2015;2015(5):66. doi:10.5339/gcsp.2015.66
14.
Cartwright N. Middle-range theory: Without it what could anyone do? THEORIA An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science. Published online September 2020. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/THEORIA/article/view/21479
15.
Merton RK. Science and technology in a democratic order, reprinted as The normative structure of science. Published online 1942. https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/merton_sociology_science.pdf
16.
Huckvale K, Torous J, Larsen ME. Assessment of the Data Sharing and Privacy Practices of Smartphone Apps for Depression and Smoking Cessation. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(4):e192542. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2542
17.
Saint-Exupéry A de. Le petit prince [The little prince]. Verenigde State van Amerika: Reynal & Hitchkock (US), Gallimard (FR). Published online 1943.
18.
Mitroff II. Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review. 1974;39(4):579-595. doi:10.2307/2094423
19.
Cattau D. David Blackwell, ’Superstar’. The University of Illinois Alumni Association – Illinois Alumni Magazine. Published online 2010.
20.
Brin S, Page L. The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine. Computer Networks. 1998;30:107-117. Accessed June 21, 2023. http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
21.
Zaveri B. Google’s Revenue By Segment (2016-2023). Business Quant. Published online February 2020. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://businessquant.com/google-revenue-by-segment
22.
Flaherty C. Revolt Over an Editor. Inside Higher Ed. Published online 2018. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/30/prominent-psychologist-resigns-journal-editor-over-allegations-over-self-citation
23.
Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin J, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. The Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867-872.
24.
Sternberg RJ. "Am I Famous Yet?" Judging Scholarly Merit in Psychological Science: An Introduction. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2016;11(6):877-881. doi:10.1177/1745691616661777
25.
Rokeach M. The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Published online 1954.
26.
Resnick B. Intellectual humility: The importance of knowing you might be wrong. Vox. Published online January 2019. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication
27.
Grolemund G. Hands-on Programming with R: Write Your Own Functions and Simulations. " O’Reilly Media, Inc."; 2014.
28.
Lakens D. The Practical Alternative to the p Value Is the Correctly Used p Value. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2021;16(3):639-648. doi:10.1177/1745691620958012
29.
Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician. 2016;70(2):129-133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
30.
Harrell F. Statistical Thinking - A Litany of Problems With p-values. Published online February 2017. Accessed June 27, 2023. https://www.fharrell.com/post/pval-litany/
31.
Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2016;31(4):337-350. doi:10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
32.
Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a World Beyond “ p < 0.05.” The American Statistician. 2019;73(sup1):1-19. doi:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
33.
Engber D. Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Slate. Published online June 2017. Accessed July 13, 2023. https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html
34.
Kekecs Z, Palfi B, Szaszi B, et al. Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: The transparent Psi project. Royal Society Open Science. 2023;10(2):191375. doi:10.1098/rsos.191375
35.
Bem D, Tressoldi P, Rabeyron T, Duggan M. Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events. F1000Research. 2016;4:1188. doi:10.12688/f1000research.7177.2
36.
Lakens D. The 20% Statistician: A pre-publication peer-review of the ’Feeling The Future’ meta-analysis. The 20% Statistician. Published online May 2014. Accessed July 14, 2023. http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-pre-publication-peer-review-of-meta.html
37.
Doyen S, Klein O, Pichon CL, Cleeremans A. Behavioral Priming: It’s All in the Mind, but Whose Mind? PLOS ONE. 2012;7(1):e29081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
38.
Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1996;71(2):230.
39.
Schimmack U. Replicability Audit of John A. Bargh. Replicability-Index. Published online March 2019. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://replicationindex.com/2019/03/17/raudit-bargh/
40.
Yong E. A failed replication draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor. Science. Published online March 2012. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen
41.
Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science. 2011;22(11):1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
42.
Schimmack U. A Meta-Scientific Perspective on “Thinking: Fast and Slow. Replicability-Index. Published online December 2020. Accessed July 18, 2023. https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-perspective-on-thinking-fast-and-slow/
43.
John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science. 2012;23(5):524-532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
44.
Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018;2(9):637-644. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
45.
Klein RA, Vianello M, Hasselman F, et al. Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018;1(4):443-490. doi:10.1177/2515245918810225
46.
Oransky I. Retractions are increasing, but not enough. Nature. 2022;608(7921):9-9. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-02071-6
47.
Brainard J, You J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s “death penalty.” Science. 2018;25(1):1-5.
48.
Kühberger A, Streit D, Scherndl T. Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(12):e0277814. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277814
49.
Retraction Watch. Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Retraction Watch. Published online December 2015. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/
50.
Bornemann-Cimenti H, Szilagyi IS, Sandner-Kiesling A. Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2016;22(4):1063-1072. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9680-y
51.
Gorski D. When fraud undermines science-based medicine. Science-Based Medicine. Published online March 2009. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-fraud-undermines-science-based-medicine/
52.
Desbarats N. I’ve Stopped Using Box Plots. Should You?, Nightingale. Nightingale. Published online November 2021. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://nightingaledvs.com/ive-stopped-using-box-plots-should-you/
53.
Kerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and social psychology review. 1998;2(3):196-217.
54.
Lishner DA. HARKing: Conceptualizations, harms, and two fundamental remedies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2021;41(4):248.
55.
Hollenbeck JR, Wright PM. Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management. 2017;43(1):5-18.
56.
Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2000;53(2):207-216. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4
57.
Møller AP, Jennions MD. Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2001;16(10):580-586. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02235-2
58.
Porta M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford university press; 2014.
59.
Mertens S, Herberz M, Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119(1):e2107346118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2107346118
60.
Maier M, Bartoš F, Stanley TD, Shanks DR, Harris AJL, Wagenmakers EJ. No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119(31):e2200300119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2200300119
61.
Maier M, Bartoš F, Wagenmakers EJ. Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Addressing publication bias with model-averaging. Psychological Methods. 2023;28(1):107-122. doi:10.1037/met0000405
62.
Rodgers MA, Pustejovsky JE. Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological methods. 2021;26(2):141.
63.
Shi L, Lin L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: Practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Medicine. 2019;98(23):e15987. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000015987
64.
Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology. 1998;2(2):175-220.
65.
Mackay C. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. George Routledge; sons; 1869.
66.
Pusztai L, Hatzis C, Andre F. Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: Problems and solutions. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2013;10(12):720-724.
67.
Fischhoff B. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance. 1975;1(3):288.
68.
Nosek BA, Lindsay DS. Preregistration becoming the norm in psychological science. APS Observer. 2018;31.
69.
NASA Science. Unmasking the Face on Mars Science Mission Directorate. Unmasking the Face on Mars. Published online May 2001. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1
70.
Center for Open Science. Preregistration. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg
71.
Schwarzkopf S. It’s not the end of the world if your research gets “scooped.” Times Higher Education (THE). Published online April 2016. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/its-not-end-world-if-your-research-gets-scooped
72.
Hawkins RXD, Smith EN, Au C, et al. Improving the Replicability of Psychological Science Through Pedagogy. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018;1(1):7-18. doi:10.1177/2515245917740427
73.
Stojmenovska D, Bol T, Leopold T. Teaching replication to graduate students. Teaching Sociology. 2019;47(4):303-313.
74.
Janz N. Bringing the gold standard into the classroom: Replication in university teaching. International Studies Perspectives. 2016;17(4):392-407.
75.
Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. A 21 word solution. Available at SSRN 2160588. Published online 2012.
76.
Rowhani-Farid A, Aldcroft A, Barnett AG. Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial. Royal Society Open Science. 2020;7(3):191818. doi:10.1098/rsos.191818
77.
American Psychological Association. Open Science Badges. https://wwwapaorg. Published online 2023. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/open-science-badges
78.
Center for Open Science. Open Science Badges. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/badges
79.
Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, et al. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS biology. 2016;14(5):e1002456.
80.
Rowhani-Farid A, Barnett AG. Badges for Sharing Data and Code at Biostatistics: An Observational Study. F1000Research; 2018. doi:10.12688/f1000research.13477.2
81.
European Science Foundation. Principles and Implementation Plan S. Published online 2023. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/
82.
Mudrak B. What Are Preprints, and How Do They Benefit Authors? AJE. Published online 2018. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/
83.
Center for Open Science. Registered Reports. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports
84.
Chambers C. What’s next for Registered Reports? Nature. 2019;573(7773):187-189. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6
85.
Wickham H. A Layered Grammar of Graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 2010;19(1):3-28. doi:10.1198/jcgs.2009.07098