mischbeck/ThesisProposal
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

added literature of initial literature review

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Michael Beck 2024-12-11 17:27:40 +01:00
parent e01acda6ac
commit d50455ef7f
1 changed files with 430 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

430
lit.bib
View File

@ -0,0 +1,430 @@
@article{abtRegisteredReportsJournal2021,
title = {Registered {{Reports}} in the {{Journal}} of {{Sports Sciences}}},
author = {Abt, Grant and Boreham, Colin and Davison, Gareth and Jackson, Robin and Wallace, Eric and Williams, A Mark},
year = {2021},
month = aug,
journal = {Journal of Sports Sciences},
volume = {39},
number = {16},
pages = {1789--1790},
publisher = {Routledge},
issn = {0264-0414},
doi = {10.1080/02640414.2021.1950974},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.1950974},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
pmid = {34379576},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/RKLIRD6R/Abt et al. - 2021 - Registered Reports in the Journal of Sports Sciences.pdf}
}
@article{akkerPreregistrationSecondaryData2021,
title = {Preregistration of Secondary Data Analysis: {{A}} Template and Tutorial},
shorttitle = {Preregistration of Secondary Data Analysis},
author = {van den Akker, Olmo R. and Weston, Sara and Campbell, Lorne and Chopik, Bill and Damian, Rodica and {Davis-Kean}, Pamela and Hall, Andrew and Kosie, Jessica and Kruse, Elliott and Olsen, Jerome and Ritchie, Stuart and Valentine, K. D. and van 't Veer, Anna and Bakker, Marjan},
year = {2021},
month = nov,
journal = {Meta-Psychology},
volume = {5},
issn = {2003-2714},
doi = {10.15626/MP.2020.2625},
url = {https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/2625},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Preregistration has been lauded as one of the solutions to the so-called `crisis of confidence' in the social sciences and has therefore gained popularity in recent years. However, the current guidelines for preregistration have been developed primarily for studies where new data will be collected. Yet, preregistering secondary data analyses--- where new analyses are proposed for existing data---is just as important, given that researchers' hypotheses and analyses may be biased by their prior knowledge of the data. The need for proper guidance in this area is especially desirable now that data is increasingly shared publicly. In this tutorial, we present a template specifically designed for the preregistration of secondary data analyses and provide comments and a worked example that may help with using the template effectively. Through this illustration, we show that completing such a template is feasible, helps limit researcher degrees of freedom, and may make researchers more deliberate in their data selection and analysis efforts.},
copyright = {Copyright (c) 2021 Olmo van den Akker, Sara Weston, Lorne Campbell, Bill Chopik, Rodica Damian, Pamela Davis-Kean, Andrew Hall, Jessica Kosie, Elliott Kruse, Jerome Olsen, Stuart Ritchie, KD Valentine, Anna van 't Veer, Marjan Bakker},
langid = {english},
keywords = {preregistration,secondary data analysis},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/YH9JQF8M/Akker et al. - 2021 - Preregistration of secondary data analysis A template and tutorial.pdf}
}
@article{chinQuestionableResearchPractices2023a,
title = {Questionable {{Research Practices}} and {{Open Science}} in {{Quantitative Criminology}}},
author = {Chin, Jason M. and Pickett, Justin T. and Vazire, Simine and Holcombe, Alex O.},
year = {2023},
month = mar,
journal = {Journal of Quantitative Criminology},
volume = {39},
number = {1},
pages = {21--51},
issn = {1573-7799},
doi = {10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers' opinions of those practices.},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Meta-research,Open science,Questionable research practices,Reproducibility},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/MVV76FGZ/Chin et al. - 2023 - Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology.pdf}
}
@article{claesenComparingDreamReality2021,
title = {Comparing Dream to Reality: An Assessment of Adherence of the First Generation of Preregistered Studies},
shorttitle = {Comparing Dream to Reality},
author = {Claesen, Aline and Gomes, Sara and Tuerlinckx, Francis and Vanpaemel, Wolf},
year = {2021},
month = oct,
journal = {Royal Society Open Science},
volume = {8},
number = {10},
pages = {211037},
publisher = {Royal Society},
doi = {10.1098/rsos.211037},
url = {https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211037},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Preregistration is a method to increase research transparency by documenting research decisions on a public, third-party repository prior to any influence by data. It is becoming increasingly popular in all subfields of psychology and beyond. Adherence to the preregistration plan may not always be feasible and even is not necessarily desirable, but without disclosure of deviations, readers who do not carefully consult the preregistration plan might get the incorrect impression that the study was exactly conducted and reported as planned. In this paper, we have investigated adherence and disclosure of deviations for all articles published with the Preregistered badge in Psychological Science between February 2015 and November 2017 and shared our findings with the corresponding authors for feedback. Two out of 27 preregistered studies contained no deviations from the preregistration plan. In one study, all deviations were disclosed. Nine studies disclosed none of the deviations. We mainly observed (un)disclosed deviations from the plan regarding the reported sample size, exclusion criteria and statistical analysis. This closer look at preregistrations of the first generation reveals possible hurdles for reporting preregistered studies and provides input for future reporting guidelines. We discuss the results and possible explanations, and provide recommendations for preregistered research.},
keywords = {open science,preregistration,psychological science,researcher degrees of freedom,transparency},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/V555Q9F6/Claesen et al. - 2021 - Comparing dream to reality an assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered stud.pdf}
}
@article{evansImprovingEvidencebasedPractice2023,
title = {Improving Evidence-Based Practice through Preregistration of Applied Research: {{Barriers}} and Recommendations},
shorttitle = {Improving Evidence-Based Practice through Preregistration of Applied Research},
author = {Evans, Thomas Rhys and Branney, Peter and Clements, Andrew and Hatton, Ella},
year = {2023},
month = feb,
journal = {Accountability in Research},
volume = {30},
number = {2},
pages = {88--108},
publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
issn = {0898-9621},
doi = {10.1080/08989621.2021.1969233},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1969233},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Preregistration is the practice of publicly publishing plans on central components of the research process before access to, or collection, of data. Within the context of the replication crisis, open science practices like preregistration have been pivotal in facilitating greater transparency in research. However, such practices have been applied nearly exclusively to basic academic research, with rare consideration of the relevance to applied and consultancy-based research. This is particularly problematic as such research is typically reported with very low levels of transparency and accountability despite being disseminated as influential gray literature to inform practice. Evidence-based practice is best served by an appreciation of multiple sources of quality evidence, thus the current review considers the potential of preregistration to improve both the accessibility and credibility of applied research toward more rigorous evidence-based practice. The current three-part review outlines, first, the opportunities of preregistration for applied research, and second, three barriers -- practical challenges, stakeholder roles, and the suitability of preregistration. Last, this review makes four recommendations to overcome these barriers and maximize the opportunities of preregistration for academics, industry, and the structures they are held within -- changes to preregistration templates, new types of templates, education and training, and recognition and structural changes.},
pmid = {34396837},
keywords = {accountability,Applied research,gray literature,open science,preregistration,transparency},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/CYN3BKSJ/Evans et al. - 2023 - Improving evidence-based practice through preregistration of applied research Barriers and recommen.pdf}
}
@article{francoPublicationBiasSocial2014,
title = {Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: {{Unlocking}} the File Drawer},
shorttitle = {Publication Bias in the Social Sciences},
author = {Franco, Annie and Malhotra, Neil and Simonovits, Gabor},
year = {2014},
month = sep,
journal = {Science},
volume = {345},
number = {6203},
pages = {1502--1505},
publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science},
doi = {10.1126/science.1255484},
url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1255484},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {We studied publication bias in the social sciences by analyzing a known population of conducted studies---221 in total---in which there is a full accounting of what is published and unpublished. We leveraged Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), a National Science Foundation--sponsored program in which researchers propose survey-based experiments to be run on representative samples of American adults. Because TESS proposals undergo rigorous peer review, the studies in the sample all exceed a substantial quality threshold. Strong results are 40 percentage points more likely to be published than are null results and 60 percentage points more likely to be written up. We provide direct evidence of publication bias and identify the stage of research production at which publication bias occurs: Authors do not write up and submit null findings.},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/3INXI5Z4/Franco et al. - 2014 - Publication bias in the social sciences Unlocking the file drawer.pdf}
}
@article{freeseReplicationSocialScience2017,
title = {Replication in {{Social Science}}},
author = {Freese, Jeremy and Peterson, David},
year = {2017},
month = jul,
journal = {Annual Review of Sociology},
volume = {43},
number = {Volume 43, 2017},
pages = {147--165},
publisher = {Annual Reviews},
issn = {0360-0572, 1545-2115},
doi = {10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053450},
url = {https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053450},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Across the medical and social sciences, new discussions about replication have led to transformations in research practice. Sociologists, however, have been largely absent from these discussions. The goals of this review are to introduce sociologists to these developments, synthesize insights from science studies about replication in general, and detail the specific issues regarding replication that occur in sociology. The first half of the article argues that a sociologically sophisticated understanding of replication must address both the ways that replication rules and conventions evolved within an epistemic culture and how those cultures are shaped by specific research challenges. The second half outlines the four main dimensions of replicability in quantitative sociology---verifiability, robustness, repeatability, and generalizability---and discusses the specific ambiguities of interpretation that can arise in each. We conclude by advocating some commonsense changes to promote replication while acknowledging the epistemic diversity of our field.},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/JEUNVQE5/Freese and Peterson - 2017 - Replication in Social Science.pdf;/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/62Q3HELK/annurev-soc-060116-053450.html}
}
@article{greenspanOpenSciencePractices2024,
title = {Open Science Practices in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals},
author = {Greenspan, Rachel Leigh and Baggett, Logan and B. Boutwell, Brian},
year = {2024},
month = sep,
journal = {Journal of Experimental Criminology},
issn = {1572-8315},
doi = {10.1007/s11292-024-09640-x},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09640-x},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Calls for more transparent and replicable scientific practices have been increasing across scientific disciplines over the last decade, often referred to as the open science movement. Open science practices are arguably particularly important in fields like criminology and criminal justice where empirical findings aim to inform public policy and legal practice. Despite favorable views of these practices by criminal justice scholars, limited research has explored how often researchers actually use these open science practices.},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Criminology,Open code,Open data,Open materials,Open science,Pre-registration},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/I2BVQP5G/Greenspan et al. - 2024 - Open science practices in criminology and criminal justice journals.pdf}
}
@article{havronPreregistrationInfantResearch2020,
title = {Preregistration in Infant Research---{{A}} Primer},
author = {Havron, Naomi and Bergmann, Christina and Tsuji, Sho},
year = {2020},
journal = {Infancy},
volume = {25},
number = {5},
pages = {734--754},
issn = {1532-7078},
doi = {10.1111/infa.12353},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/infa.12353},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Preregistration, the act of specifying a research plan in advance, is becoming more common in scientific research. Infant researchers contend with unique problems that might make preregistration particularly challenging. Infants are a hard-to-reach population, usually yielding small sample sizes, they can only complete a limited number of trials, and they can be excluded based on hard-to-predict complications (e.g., parental interference, fussiness). In addition, as effects themselves potentially change with age and population, it is hard to calculate an a priori effect size. At the same time, these very factors make preregistration in infant studies a valuable tool. A priori examination of the planned study, including the hypotheses, sample size, and resulting statistical power, increases the credibility of single studies and adds value to the field. Preregistration might also improve explicit decision making to create better studies. We present an in-depth discussion of the issues uniquely relevant to infant researchers, and ways to contend with them in preregistration and study planning. We provide recommendations to researchers interested in following current best practices.},
copyright = {{\copyright} 2020 International Congress of Infant Studies (ICIS)},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/7MTAJ6I2/Havron et al. - 2020 - Preregistration in infant research—A primer.pdf;/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/DF3KLSUF/infa.html}
}
@article{johnsonPreregistrationSingleCaseDesign2019,
title = {Preregistration in {{Single-Case Design Research}}},
author = {Johnson, Austin H. and Cook, Bryan G.},
year = {2019},
month = oct,
journal = {Exceptional Children},
volume = {86},
number = {1},
pages = {95--112},
publisher = {SAGE Publications Inc},
issn = {0014-4029},
doi = {10.1177/0014402919868529},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919868529},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {To draw informed conclusions from research studies, research consumers need full and accurate descriptions of study methods and procedures. Preregistration has been proposed as a means to clarify reporting of research methods and procedures, with the goal of reducing bias in research. However, preregistration has been applied primarily to research studies utilizing group designs. In this article, we discuss general issues in preregistration and consider the use of preregistration in single-case design research, particularly as it relates to differing applications of this methodology. We then provide a rationale and make specific recommendations for preregistering single-case design research, including guidelines for preregistering basic descriptive information, research questions, participant characteristics, baseline conditions, independent and dependent variables, hypotheses, and phase-change decisions.},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/Z34LN54E/Johnson and Cook - 2019 - Preregistration in Single-Case Design Research.pdf}
}
@article{kuhbergerPublicationBiasPsychology2014,
title = {Publication {{Bias}} in {{Psychology}}: {{A Diagnosis Based}} on the {{Correlation}} between {{Effect Size}} and {{Sample Size}}},
shorttitle = {Publication {{Bias}} in {{Psychology}}},
author = {K{\"u}hberger, Anton and Fritz, Astrid and Scherndl, Thomas},
year = {2014},
month = sep,
journal = {PLOS ONE},
volume = {9},
number = {9},
pages = {e105825},
publisher = {Public Library of Science},
issn = {1932-6203},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0105825},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105825},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Background The p value obtained from a significance test provides no information about the magnitude or importance of the underlying phenomenon. Therefore, additional reporting of effect size is often recommended. Effect sizes are theoretically independent from sample size. Yet this may not hold true empirically: non-independence could indicate publication bias. Methods We investigate whether effect size is independent from sample size in psychological research. We randomly sampled 1,000 psychological articles from all areas of psychological research. We extracted p values, effect sizes, and sample sizes of all empirical papers, and calculated the correlation between effect size and sample size, and investigated the distribution of p values. Results We found a negative correlation of r = -.45 [95\% CI: -.53; -.35] between effect size and sample size. In addition, we found an inordinately high number of p values just passing the boundary of significance. Additional data showed that neither implicit nor explicit power analysis could account for this pattern of findings. Conclusion The negative correlation between effect size and samples size, and the biased distribution of p values indicate pervasive publication bias in the entire field of psychology.},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Clinical psychology,Decision trees,Psychology,Publication ethics,Scientific publishing,Social psychology,Statistical data,Test statistics},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/SHQZWBDE/Kühberger et al. - 2014 - Publication Bias in Psychology A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample.pdf}
}
@article{loggPreregistrationWeighingCosts2021,
title = {Pre-Registration: {{Weighing}} Costs and Benefits for Researchers},
shorttitle = {Pre-Registration},
author = {Logg, Jennifer M. and Dorison, Charles A.},
year = {2021},
month = nov,
journal = {Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes},
volume = {167},
pages = {18--27},
issn = {0749-5978},
doi = {10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.006},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597821000649},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {In the past decade, the social and behavioral sciences underwent a methodological revolution, offering practical prescriptions for improving the replicability and reproducibility of research results. One key to reforming science is a simple and scalable practice: pre-registration. Pre-registration constitutes pre-specifying an analysis plan prior to data collection. A growing chorus of articles discusses the prescriptive, field-wide benefits of pre-registration. To increase adoption, however, scientists need to know who currently pre-registers and understand perceived barriers to doing so. Thus, we weigh costs and benefits of pre-registration. Our survey of researchers reveals generational differences in who pre-registers and uncertainty regarding how pre-registration benefits individual researchers. We leverage these data to directly address researchers' uncertainty by clarifying why pre-registration improves the research process itself. Finally, we discuss how to pre-register and compare available resources. The present work examines the who, why, and how of pre-registration in order to weigh the costs and benefits of pre-registration to researchers and motivate continued adoption.},
keywords = {Methodology,Open science,Pre-registration,Replication},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/MT3PITBE/Logg and Dorison - 2021 - Pre-registration Weighing costs and benefits for researchers.pdf;/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/4IG443GZ/S0749597821000649.html}
}
@article{managoPreregistrationRegisteredReports2023,
title = {Preregistration and {{Registered Reports}} in {{Sociology}}: {{Strengths}}, {{Weaknesses}}, and {{Other Considerations}}},
shorttitle = {Preregistration and {{Registered Reports}} in {{Sociology}}},
author = {Manago, Bianca},
year = {2023},
month = mar,
journal = {The American Sociologist},
volume = {54},
number = {1},
pages = {193--210},
issn = {1936-4784},
doi = {10.1007/s12108-023-09563-6},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-023-09563-6},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Both within and outside of sociology, there are conversations about methods to reduce error and improve research quality---one such method is preregistration and its counterpart, registered reports. Preregistration is the process of detailing research questions, variables, analysis plans, etc. before conducting research. Registered reports take this one step further, with a paper being reviewed on the merit of these plans, not its findings. In this manuscript, I detail preregistration's and registered reports' strengths and weaknesses for improving the quality of sociological research. I conclude by considering the implications of a structural-level adoption of preregistration and registered reports. Importantly, I do not recommend that all sociologists use preregistration and registered reports for all studies. Rather, I discuss the potential benefits and genuine limitations of preregistration and registered reports for the individual sociologist and the discipline.},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Open science,Preregistration,Registered reports,Reproducibility,Transparency},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/BGQB764K/Manago - 2023 - Preregistration and Registered Reports in Sociology Strengths, Weaknesses, and Other Considerations.pdf}
}
@article{markowitzTracingAdoptionEffects2021,
title = {Tracing the {{Adoption}} and {{Effects}} of {{Open Science}} in {{Communication Research}}*},
author = {Markowitz, David M and Song, Hyunjin and Taylor, Samuel Hardman},
year = {2021},
month = oct,
journal = {Journal of Communication},
volume = {71},
number = {5},
pages = {739--763},
issn = {0021-9916},
doi = {10.1093/joc/jqab030},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {A significant paradigm shift is underway in communication research as open science practices (e.g., preregistration, open materials) are becoming more prevalent. The current work identified how much the field has embraced such practices and evaluated their impact on authors (e.g., citation rates). We collected 10,517 papers across 26 journals from 2010 to 2020, observing that 5.1\% of papers used or mentioned open science practices. Communication research has seen the rate of nonsignificant p-values (p \> .055) increasing with the adoption of open science over time, but p-values just below p \< .05 have not reduced with open science adoption. Open science adoption was unrelated to citation rate at the article level; however, it was inversely related to the journals' h-index. Our results suggest communication organizations and scholars have important work ahead to make open science more mainstream. We close with suggestions to increase open science adoption for the field at large.},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/WBKICQTZ/Markowitz et al. - 2021 - Tracing the Adoption and Effects of Open Science in Communication Research.pdf;/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/KV8S4HXI/6354844.html}
}
@article{mertensPreregistrationAnalysesPreexisting2019,
title = {Preregistration of {{Analyses}} of {{Preexisting Data}}},
author = {Mertens, Ga{\"e}tan and Krypotos, Angelos-Miltiadis},
year = {2019},
month = aug,
journal = {Psychologica Belgica},
volume = {59},
number = {1},
issn = {0033-2879},
doi = {10.5334/pb.493},
url = {https://psychologicabelgica.com/articles/10.5334/pb.493},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Psychologica Belgica is the official journal of the Belgian Association for Psychological Sciences (BAPS). BAPS promotes the development of psychological sciences in Belgium, at both fundamental and applied research levels. The journal ensures rigorous peer-review to maintain research integrity. Psychological Belgica makes publications available online as soon as they are finalised. All publications are open access, making research available free of charge and without delay. The journal has a 2022 Impact Factor of 2.0 and a 5 year impact factor of 2.1. Subscribe to content alerts and other journal news here. You can also follow the journal on ResearchGate.},
langid = {american},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/GZRSX45A/Mertens and Krypotos - 2019 - Preregistration of Analyses of Preexisting Data.pdf}
}
@article{pridemoreReplicationCriminologySocial2018,
title = {Replication in {{Criminology}} and the {{Social Sciences}}},
author = {Pridemore, William Alex and Makel, Matthew C. and Plucker, Jonathan A.},
year = {2018},
month = jan,
journal = {Annual Review of Criminology},
volume = {1},
number = {Volume 1, 2018},
pages = {19--38},
publisher = {Annual Reviews},
issn = {2572-4568},
doi = {10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091849},
url = {https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091849},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Replication is a hallmark of science. In recent years, some medical sciences and behavioral sciences struggled with what came to be known as replication crises. As a field, criminology has yet to address formally the threats to our evidence base that might be posed by large-scale and systematic replication attempts, although it is likely we would face challenges similar to those experienced by other disciplines. In this review, we outline the basics of replication, summarize reproducibility problems found in other fields, undertake an original analysis of the amount and nature of replication studies appearing in criminology journals, and consider how criminology can begin to assess more formally the robustness of our knowledge through encouraging a culture of replication.},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/AFXT4GLV/Pridemore et al. - 2018 - Replication in Criminology and the Social Sciences.pdf;/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/NS8BQ7GK/annurev-criminol-032317-091849.html}
}
@article{rosenthalFileDrawerProblem1979,
title = {The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results},
author = {Rosenthal, Robert},
year = {1979},
journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
volume = {86},
number = {3},
pages = {638--641},
publisher = {American Psychological Association},
address = {US},
issn = {1939-1455},
doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638},
abstract = {For any given research area, one cannot tell how many studies have been conducted but never reported. The extreme view of the "file drawer problem" is that journals are filled with the 5\% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95\% of the studies that show nonsignificant results. Quantitative procedures for computing the tolerance for filed and future null results are reported and illustrated, and the implications are discussed. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
keywords = {Experimentation,Scientific Communication,Statistical Probability,Statistical Tests,Type I Errors},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/3Z39JCGR/doiLanding.html}
}
@article{sarafoglouSurveyHowPreregistration2022,
title = {A Survey on How Preregistration Affects the Research Workflow: Better Science but More Work},
shorttitle = {A Survey on How Preregistration Affects the Research Workflow},
author = {Sarafoglou, Alexandra and Kovacs, Marton and Bakos, Bence and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan and Aczel, Balazs},
year = {2022},
month = jul,
journal = {Royal Society Open Science},
volume = {9},
number = {7},
pages = {211997},
publisher = {Royal Society},
doi = {10.1098/rsos.211997},
url = {https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211997},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {The preregistration of research protocols and analysis plans is a main reform innovation to counteract confirmation bias in the social and behavioural sciences. While theoretical reasons to preregister are frequently discussed in the literature, the individually experienced advantages and disadvantages of this method remain largely unexplored. The goal of this exploratory study was to identify the perceived benefits and challenges of preregistration from the researcher's perspective. To this end, we surveyed 355 researchers, 299 of whom had used preregistration in their own work. The researchers indicated the experienced or expected effects of preregistration on their workflow. The results show that experiences and expectations are mostly positive. Researchers in our sample believe that implementing preregistration improves or is likely to improve the quality of their projects. Criticism of preregistration is primarily related to the increase in work-related stress and the overall duration of the project. While the benefits outweighed the challenges for the majority of researchers with preregistration experience, this was not the case for the majority of researchers without preregistration experience. The experienced advantages and disadvantages identified in our survey could inform future efforts to improve preregistration and thus help the methodology gain greater acceptance in the scientific community.},
keywords = {meta-science,open science,replication crisis},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/4V4JQAPT/Sarafoglou et al. - 2022 - A survey on how preregistration affects the research workflow better science but more work.pdf}
}
@article{savolainenReplicationResearchIntegrity2018,
title = {Replication and {{Research Integrity}} in {{Criminology}}: {{Introduction}} to the {{Special Issue}}},
shorttitle = {Replication and {{Research Integrity}} in {{Criminology}}},
author = {Savolainen, Jukka and VanEseltine, Matthew},
year = {2018},
month = aug,
journal = {Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice},
volume = {34},
number = {3},
pages = {236--244},
publisher = {SAGE Publications Inc},
issn = {1043-9862},
doi = {10.1177/1043986218777288},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986218777288},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/JEEQLPSS/Savolainen and VanEseltine - 2018 - Replication and Research Integrity in Criminology Introduction to the Special Issue.pdf}
}
@article{scogginsMeasuringTransparencySocial2024,
title = {Measuring Transparency in the Social Sciences: Political Science and International Relations},
shorttitle = {Measuring Transparency in the Social Sciences},
author = {Scoggins, Bermond and Robertson, Matthew P.},
year = {2024},
month = jul,
journal = {Royal Society Open Science},
volume = {11},
number = {7},
pages = {240313},
publisher = {Royal Society},
doi = {10.1098/rsos.240313},
url = {https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.240313},
urldate = {2024-11-16},
abstract = {The scientific method is predicated on transparency---yet the pace at which transparent research practices are being adopted by the scientific community is slow. The replication crisis in psychology showed that published findings employing statistical inference are threatened by undetected errors, data manipulation and data falsification. To mitigate these problems and bolster research credibility, open data and preregistration practices have gained traction in the natural and social sciences. However, the extent of their adoption in different disciplines is unknown. We introduce computational procedures to identify the transparency of a research field using large-scale text analysis and machine learning classifiers. Using political science and international relations as an illustrative case, we examine 93 931 articles across the top 160 political science and international relations journals between 2010 and 2021. We find that approximately 21\% of all statistical inference papers have open data and 5\% of all experiments are preregistered. Despite this shortfall, the example of leading journals in the field shows that change is feasible and can be effected quickly.},
keywords = {data sharing,journal policy,open science,preregistration},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/LZVK24S3/Scoggins and Robertson - 2024 - Measuring transparency in the social sciences political science and international relations.pdf}
}
@article{thibaultReflectionsPreregistrationCore2024,
title = {Reflections on {{Preregistration}}: {{Core Criteria}}, {{Badges}}, {{Complementary Workflows}}},
shorttitle = {Reflections on {{Preregistration}}},
author = {Thibault, Robert T. and Pennington, Charlotte R. and Munaf{\`o}, Marcus R.},
year = {2024},
month = may,
journal = {Journal of Trial \& Error},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
publisher = {JOTE Publishers},
issn = {2667-1204,},
doi = {10.36850/mr6},
url = {https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/reflections-on-preregistration/release/2},
urldate = {2024-11-06},
abstract = {Clinical trials are routinely preregistered. In psychology and the social sciences, however, only a small percentage of studies are preregistered, and those preregistrations often contain ambiguities. As advocates strive for broader uptake and effective use of preregistration, they can benefit from drawing on the experience of preregistration in clinical trials and adapting some of those successes to the psychology and social sciences context. We recommend that individuals and organizations who promote preregistration: (1) Establish core preregistration criteria required to consider a preregistration complete; (2) Award preregistered badges only to articles that meet the badge criteria; and (3) Leverage complementary workflows that provide a similar function as preregistration.},
langid = {english},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/DWV997ND/Thibault et al. - 2024 - Reflections on Preregistration Core Criteria, Badges, Complementary Workflows.pdf}
}
@article{vandenakkerPreregistrationPracticeComparison2024,
title = {Preregistration in Practice: {{A}} Comparison of Preregistered and Non-Preregistered Studies in Psychology},
shorttitle = {Preregistration in Practice},
author = {{van den Akker}, Olmo R. and {van Assen}, Marcel A. L. M. and Bakker, Marjan and Elsherif, Mahmoud and Wong, Tsz Keung and Wicherts, Jelte M.},
year = {2024},
month = sep,
journal = {Behavior Research Methods},
volume = {56},
number = {6},
pages = {5424--5433},
issn = {1554-3528},
doi = {10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0},
urldate = {2024-10-15},
abstract = {Preregistration has gained traction as one of the most promising solutions to improve the replicability of scientific effects. In this project, we compared 193 psychology studies that earned a Preregistration Challenge prize or preregistration badge to 193 related studies that were not preregistered. In contrast to our theoretical expectations and prior research, we did not find that preregistered studies had a lower proportion of positive results (Hypothesis 1), smaller effect sizes (Hypothesis 2), or fewer statistical errors (Hypothesis 3) than non-preregistered studies. Supporting our Hypotheses 4 and 5, we found that preregistered studies more often contained power analyses and typically had larger sample sizes than non-preregistered studies. Finally, concerns about the publishability and impact of preregistered studies seem unwarranted, as preregistered studies did not take longer to publish and scored better on several impact measures. Overall, our data indicate that preregistration has beneficial effects in the realm of statistical power and impact, but we did not find robust evidence that preregistration prevents p-hacking and HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known).},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Effect size,HARKing,P-hacking,Positive results,Preregistration,Research impact},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/8LPRN7WQ/van den Akker et al. - 2024 - Preregistration in practice A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psycholo.pdf}
}
@incollection{wikstromSituationalActionTheory2019,
title = {Situational {{Action Theory}}: {{A General}}, {{Dynamic}} and {{Mechanism-Based Theory}} of {{Crime}} and {{Its Causes}}},
shorttitle = {Situational {{Action Theory}}},
booktitle = {Handbook on {{Crime}} and {{Deviance}}},
author = {Wikstr{\"o}m, Per-Olof H.},
editor = {Krohn, Marvin D. and Hendrix, Nicole and Penly Hall, Gina and Lizotte, Alan J.},
year = {2019},
pages = {259--281},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
address = {Cham},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_14},
urldate = {2024-11-16},
abstract = {The core argument of Situational Action Theory (SAT) is that people ultimately commit acts of crime because they find them viable and acceptable in the circumstance (and there is no relevant and strong enough deterrent) or because they fail to act in accordance with their own personal morals (i.e., fail to exercise self-control) in circumstances when externally pressurised to act otherwise. Situational Action Theory is a general, dynamic and mechanism-based theory of crime and its causes that analyzes crime as moral actions. It proposes to explain all kinds of crime and rule-breaking more broadly (hence general), stresses the importance of the person-environment interaction and its changes (hence dynamic), and focuses on identifying key basic explanatory processes involved in crime causation (hence mechanistic). This chapter gives an overview of the basic assumptions, central concepts and key explanatory propositions of Situational Action Theory.},
isbn = {978-3-030-20779-3},
langid = {english},
keywords = {Causal mechanisms,Causes,Control,Crime,Emergence,Morality,Motivation,Selection,Situation,Situational Action Theory},
file = {/home/michaelb/Zotero/storage/BULNSUEL/Wikström - 2019 - Situational Action Theory A General, Dynamic and Mechanism-Based Theory of Crime and Its Causes.pdf}
}