Psykologtidningen nr 3 2017-05-02

Psykologin i framkant för öppen vetenskap

1. De Groot A D (1956/2014). The meaning of “significance” for different types of research [translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han LJ van der Maas]. Acta Psychologica, 148, 188-194.

2. Häggström O (2012). Why the empirical sciences need statistics so desperately. European Congress of Mathematics, Kraków, 2–7 July, 2012, 347-360.

3. Begley C G & Ellis L M (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531-533.

4. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712–712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1

5. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.

6. John K, Loewenstein G & Prelec D (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524-532.

7. Mills J L (1993). Data torturing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1196-1199.

8. Wagenmakers E J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, et al. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632-638.

9. Kerr N L (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196-217.

10. Simmons J P, Nelson L D & Simonsohn U (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.

11. Lindsay S D (2015). Replication in Psychological Science. Psychological Science. DOI: 10.1177/0956797615616374

12. Asendorpf J B, Conner M, De Fruyt F, et al. (2013). Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology. European Journal of Personality 27, 108–119. doi:10.1002/per.1919

13. Kaplan R M & Irvin V L (2015). Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time. PLoS ONE, 10, e0132382

14. Dwan K, Altman D G, Cresswell L, et al. (2011). Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. The Cochrane Library.

15. Simmons J P, Nelson L D & Simonsohn U (2012). A 21 word solution. Available at SSRN 2160588.

16. Vetenskapsrådet (2015). Förslag till Nationella riktlinjer för öppen tillgång till vetenskaplig information. ISBN: 978-91-7307-251-9.

17. Koole S L & Lakens D (2012). Rewarding replications a sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 608-614.

18. Nosek B A, Spies J R & Motyl M (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615-631.

19. Häggström O (2015). The need for nuance in the null hypothesis significance testing debate. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

20. Wagenmakers E J (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804.

21. Cumming G (2014). The new statistics: why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29.

22. Gigerenzer G (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587-606.

23. Nosek B & Chambers C (2015). The first imperative: Science that isn’t transparent isn’t science. The Guardian, 2015-06-25. Hämtad den 6:e november 2015 från: http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/jun/25/the-first-imperative-science-that-isnt-transparent-isnt-science