The data were requested to determine the effects of outliers on statistical outcomes (see Text S1 for details). In the summer of 2005, Wicherts and colleagues contacted the corresponding authors of 141 papers that were published in the second half of 2004 in one of four high-ranked journals published by the APA: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), Developmental Psychology (DP), Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP), and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (JEP∶LMC). To this end, we followed-up on Wicherts et al.'s requests for data by comparing statistical results in papers from which data were either shared or not, and to check for errors in the reporting of p-values in both types of papers. Here we study whether researchers' willingness to share data for reanalysis is associated with the strength of the evidence (defined as the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis of no effect) and the quality of the reporting of statistical results (defined in terms of the prevalence of inconsistencies in reported statistical results). However, no published research to date has addressed whether this rather bleak scenario has a bearing on reality. The unwillingness to share data of published research has been documented in a number of fields, ,, ,, ,, and is often ascribed in part to the fear among authors that independent reanalysis will expose statistical or analytical errors in their work and will produce conclusions that differ from theirs. found that 73% of psychologists publishing in four top APA journals defied APA guidelines by not sharing their data for reanalysis. Nonetheless, the replication of statistical analyses in published psychological research is hampered by psychologists' pervasive reluctance to share their raw data. For instance, upon acceptance for publication of a paper in one of the over 50 peer-reviewed journals published by the APA, authors sign a contract that they will make available data to peers who wish to reanalyze their data to verify the substantive claims put forth in the paper.
EXCEL FOR MAC 2011 HYPOTHESIS PROFESSIONAL
For these and other (ethical) reasons, many scientific journals like PLoS ONE and professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA) have clear policies concerning the sharing of data after research results are published. Statistical analyses of research data are quite error prone, ,, accounts of statistical results may be inaccurate, and decisions that researchers make during the analytical phase of a study may lean towards the goal of achieving a preferred (significant) result,.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.įunding: The preparation of this article was supported by three grants (021-001-124, 451-07-016, and 400-08-214) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Received: Accepted: OctoPublished: November 2, 2011Ĭopyright: © 2011 Wicherts et al. Tractenberg, Georgetown University Medical Center, United States of America Citation: Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D (2011) Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results.
0 kommentar(er)
