- Apr 2024
-
-
Mackay (2012)
Citation seems to be missing from reference list
-
Pittlkow et al. (2023)
Citation seems to be missing from reference list
-
- Dec 2022
-
benwhalley.github.io benwhalley.github.io
-
Warning in bind_rows_(x, .id): binding factor and character vector, coercing into character vector Warning in bind_rows_(x, .id): binding character and factor vector, coercing into character vector
Seems like a "warning" text output of the code. Probably not meant to be listed as part of the code here.
-
-
benwhalley.github.io benwhalley.github.io
-
to
"the"
-
-
benwhalley.github.io benwhalley.github.io
-
:
double :: here?
-
-
benwhalley.github.io benwhalley.github.io
-
100
10?
-
- Sep 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
citation counts area reasonable proxy for quality(Isager et al., 2021)
Actually, Isager et al. (2021) explicitly assumes that citation impact is not a proxy for quality, assuming quality means something like the rigor and quality of the study design. For further details, see Aksnes et al. (2019; https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575). "Scientific impact" would be a more appropriate term than "quality" here I think.
-
- Aug 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.comk4mhv3
-
a review the
"a review of the"
-
for
"for diagnostic categories"?
-
sand
"and"?
-
- May 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Potential conceptual issue with equating "test" and "test score". See comments by Freek Oude Maatman: https://twitter.com/psychedfreek/status/1395353719567433731
-
- Oct 2019
-
osf.io osf.io
-
torapidly to changes
grammar error
-
- Dec 2018
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
The approach we advocate and apply in this article can be simple and relatively fastto conduct, and affords the user access to important information about the strength ofevidence contained in a published study.
I am not sure I agree that the goal of the full evaluation procedure is speed. I would rather make the point that, given that it does take a long time to properly assess the value of replicating a particular original study, your Bayes factor filter approach allows researchers to target their qualitative evaluations more strategically.
However, I would be very curious to see any time estimates you may have. Do you have a ball-park for how much time the total assessment process for the example in this paper took?
-
e also recognizethat it is difficult to manage a good balance between adequate reporting and the word limitin many (especially higher-impact) journals.
On the other hand, supplementary materials (which could be posted on open repositories) or submission of meta-data to services like Curate Science, should still be a viable strategy in this case, no?
-
Our reanalysis of article 12’s results, in conjunction with other methodological andtheoretical criteria considerations heavily underlines this replication candidate as a promis-ing target, reporting results that are in need of independent corroboration. We recommenda direct, or pure replication, such that the findings exactly as they are presented can be veri-fied. In addition, we recommend a conceptual replication in which significant changes to thecharacteristics of the sample are made (e.g., as mentioned, on the basis of the participants’ages and religions).
I miss a critical discussion of the ability of article 12's study design to adequately address the substantive hypothesis of interest, before this conclusion is reached. If what we are interested in is the experience of recognition of God's existence on risk taking behavior, then is a priming paradigm with a self-report outcome really the design we should invest resources in replicating? I do not have a definite answer, but I think such considerations should be part of the reflection on study methodology.
-
. The importance of a replication of thefindings of article 12 is clear in the light of low power: as plausible as the results of article 12may be, they are not compelling on their own simply due to low power.
Given the p values reported for these effects, is it perhaps also possible to criticize the test outcomes based on p-curve logic? (i.e. probability of getting three p-s between .05 and .01 is low).
-
article 12.
Perhaps directly cite these studies directly in the text? Would make it easier for me to look them up while reading.
-
The suitability of article 4 as a replication target is supported by factthat this article has already been a target for replication, and that that replication didnot conclusively reinforce its conclusions.
doesn't the need for further (close) replication depend on the conclusiveness of the existing replication?
-
. (the two othert–tests in the sets werenot significant, thus are not of interest to us for the purposes of this reanalysis).
Could the focus on significant results sometimes lead one astray? E.g. what happens in cases where one important result is non-significant and one important result is highly significant, and both bear on the same hypothesis.
-
4a through 4e
Do you mean 4a through 4c?
-
Additionally, we see only one case in which an article with more thanone reanalyzed resultallfell into tier 3 (
I think there is something grammatically strange about this sentence. I am not sure what "all" is referring to.
-
When it comes to replication, however, there is a typology to speak of that separatesthe general concept of ‘replication’ out into subgroups.
The discussion of replication taxonomy as a continuum by LeBel et al. may be of relevance to this paragraph. See for example: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000106
-
either efficient nor useful to replicate results at random
Kuhberger's commentary to Zwaan, Lucas and Donnellan (2017) may be of relevance to this argument:
-
We used statistical significance as our criterion as we wereinterested in those results claiming the existence of an effect
It is not clear to me why this should be a criterion. According to your own introductory explanations, it seems to me that it would be equally interesting, if not more, to inspect claims of non-existence of an effect based on a non-significant NHST. Am I overlooking something here?
-
from
suggestion: "from the"
-
2016Psyc
suggestion: "... 2016 issues of the journal Psychological Science..."
-
Chris Chamber
Maybe cite with last name and an opinion piece/editorial? E.g. his 2013 Cortex editorial
-
Through the lens of the Bayes factor, scenario 1 presentsambiguous evidence: BF10= 0.94
I think it might be helpful to state what the prior and alternative hypothesis is for this example, since these parameters partly determine the Bayes factor, and they also contribute to differences between conclusions drawn about evidence from p-values vs Bayes factors.
-
. which
Missing first half of sentence.
-