Linked bibliography for the SEP article "Reproducibility of Scientific Results" by Fiona Fidler and John Wilcox

This is an automatically generated and experimental page

If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.

This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.

  • Agnoli, Franca, Jelte M. Wicherts, Coosje L. S. Veldkamp, Paolo Albiero, and Roberto Cubelli, 2017, “Questionable Research Practices among Italian Research Psychologists”, Jakob Pietschnig (ed.), PLoS ONE, 12(3): e0172792. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172792 (Scholar)
  • Allen, Peter J., Kate P. Dorozenko, and Lynne D. Roberts, 2016, “Difficult Decisions: A Qualitative Exploration of the Statistical Decision Making Process from the Perspectives of Psychology Students and Academics”, Frontiers in Psychology, 7(February): 188. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00188 (Scholar)
  • Anderson, Christopher J., Štěpán Bahnik, Michael Barnett-Cowan, Frank A. Bosco, Jesse Chandler, C. R. Chartier, F. Cheung, et al., 2016, “Response to Comment on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science’”, Science, 351(6277): 1037. doi:10.1126/science.aad9163 (Scholar)
  • Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, and Brian C. Martinson, 2010, “Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists’ Subscription to Norms of Research”, The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3): 366–393. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0095 (Scholar)
  • Atmanspacher, Harald and Sabine Maasen, 2016a, “Introduction”, in Atmanspacher and Maasen 2016b: 1–8. doi:10.1002/9781118865064.ch0">10.1002/9781118865064.ch0 (Scholar)
  • ––– (eds.), 2016b, Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118865064 (Scholar)
  • Baker, Monya, 2016, “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility”, Nature, 533(7604): 452–454. doi:10.1038/533452a (Scholar)
  • Bakker, Marjan, Chris H. J. Hartgerink, Jelte M. Wicherts, and Han L. J. van der Maas, 2016, “Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research”, Psychological Science, 27(8): 1069–1077. doi:10.1177/0956797616647519 (Scholar)
  • Bakker, Marjan and Jelte M. Wicherts, 2011, “The (Mis)Reporting of Statistical Results in Psychology Journals”, Behavior Research Methods, 43(3): 666–678. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0089-5 (Scholar)
  • Begley, C. Glenn and Lee M. Ellis, 2012, “Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research: Drug Development”, Nature, 483(7391): 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a (Scholar)
  • Bem, Daryl J., 2011, “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 407–425. (Scholar)
  • Benjamin, Daniel J., James O. Berger, Magnus Johannesson, Brian A. Nosek, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Richard Berk, Kenneth A. Bollen, et al., 2018, “Redefine Statistical Significance”, Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1): 6–10. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z (Scholar)
  • Braude, Stephen E., 1979, ESP and Psychokinesis. A Philosophical Examination, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (Scholar)
  • Button, Katherine S., John P. A. Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Flint, Emma S. J. Robinson, and Marcus R. Munafò, 2013, “Power Failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5): 365–376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475 (Scholar)
  • Camerer C.F., et al., 2018, “Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015”, Nature Human Behaviour, 2: 637–644. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z (Scholar)
  • Cartwright, Nancy, 1991, “Replicability, Reproducibility and Robustness: Comments on Harry Collins”, History of Political Economy, 23(1): 143–155. (Scholar)
  • Chambers, Christopher D., 2013, “Registered Reports: A New Publishing Initiative at Cortex”, Cortex, 49(3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016 (Scholar)
  • –––, 2017, The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
  • Chang, Andrew C. and Phillip Li, 2015, “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say ‘Usually Not’”, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2015(83): 1–26. doi:10.17016/feds.2015.083 (Scholar)
  • Churchman, C. West, 1948, “Statistics, Pragmatics, Induction”, Philosophy of Science, 15(3): 249–268. doi:10.1086/286991 (Scholar)
  • Collins, Harry M., 1985, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, London; Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2016, “Reproducibility of experiments: experiments’ regress, statistical uncertainty principle, and the replication imperative” in Atmanspacher and Maasen 2016b: 65–82. doi:10.1002/9781118865064.ch4 (Scholar)
  • Cohen, Jacob, 1962, “The Statistical Power of Abnormal-Social Psychological Research: A Review”,, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3): 145–153. doi:10.1037/h0045186 (Scholar)
  • –––, 1994, “The Earth Is Round (\(p < .05\))”, American Psychologist, 49(12): 997–1003, doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 (Scholar)
  • Cova, Florian, Brent Strickland, Angela Abatista, Aurélien Allard, James Andow, Mario Attie, James Beebe, et al., forthcoming, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy”, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, early online: 14 June 2018. doi:10.1007/s13164-018-0400-9 (Scholar)
  • Cristea, Ioana Alina and John P. A. Ioannidis, 2018, “P Values in Display Items Are Ubiquitous and Almost Invariably Significant: A Survey of Top Science Journals”, Christos A. Ouzounis (ed.), PLoS ONE, 13(5): e0197440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197440 (Scholar)
  • Cumming, Geoff, 2012, Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis. New York: Routledge. (Scholar)
  • Cumming, Geoff and Robert Calin-Jageman, 2017, Introduction to the New Statistics: Estimation, Open Science and Beyond, New York: Routledge. (Scholar)
  • Cumming, Geoff, Fiona Fidler, Martine Leonard, Pavel Kalinowski, Ashton Christiansen, Anita Kleinig, Jessica Lo, Natalie McMenamin, and Sarah Wilson, 2007, “Statistical Reform in Psychology: Is Anything Changing?”, Psychological Science, 18(3): 230–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01881.x (Scholar)
  • Di Bucchianico, Marilena, 2014, “A Matter of Phronesis: Experiment and Virtue in Physics, A Case Study”, in Virtue Epistemology Naturalized, Abrol Fairweather (ed.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 291–312. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04672-3_17 (Scholar)
  • Dominus, Susan, 2017, “When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy”, The New York Times, October 21, Sunday Magazine, page 29. (Scholar)
  • Douglas, Heather, 2016, “Values in Science”, in Paul Humphreys, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 609–630. (Scholar)
  • Earp, Brian D. and David Trafimow, 2015, “Replication, Falsification, and the Crisis of Confidence in Social Psychology”, Frontiers in Psychology, 6(May): 621. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621 (Scholar)
  • Errington, Timothy M., Elizabeth Iorns, William Gunn, Fraser Elisabeth Tan, Joelle Lomax, and Brian A Nosek, 2014, “An Open Investigation of the Reproducibility of Cancer Biology Research”, ELife, 3(December): e043333. doi:10.7554/elife.04333 (Scholar)
  • Etz, Alexander and Joachim Vandekerckhove, 2016, “A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology”, Daniele Marinazzo (ed.), PLoS ONE, 11(2): e0149794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149794 (Scholar)
  • Fanelli, Daniele, 2010a, “Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data”, Enrico Scalas (ed.), PLoS ONE, 5(4): e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 (Scholar)
  • –––, 2010b, “‘Positive’ Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences”, Enrico Scalas (ed.), PLoS ONE, 5(4): e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 (Scholar)
  • –––, 2012, “Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries”, Scientometrics, 90(3): 891–904. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 (Scholar)
  • Fang, Ferric C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall, 2012, “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42): 17028–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109 (Scholar)
  • Feest, Uljana, 2016, “The Experimenters’ Regress Reconsidered: Replication, Tacit Knowledge, and the Dynamics of Knowledge Generation”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 58(August): 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.003 (Scholar)
  • Fidler, Fiona, Mark A. Burgman, Geoff Cumming, Robert Buttrose, and Neil Thomason, 2006, “Impact of Criticism of Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing on Statistical Reporting Practices in Conservation Biology”, Conservation Biology, 20(5): 1539–1544. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00525.x (Scholar)
  • Fidler, Fiona, Yung En Chee, Bonnie C. Wintle, Mark A. Burgman, Michael A. McCarthy, and Ascelin Gordon, 2017, “Metaresearch for Evaluating Reproducibility in Ecology and Evolution”, BioScience, 67(3): 282–289. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw159 (Scholar)
  • Fiedler, Klaus and Norbert Schwarz, 2016, “Questionable Research Practices Revisited”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1): 45–52. doi:10.1177/1948550615612150 (Scholar)
  • Fiske, Susan T., 2016, “A Call to Change Science’s Culture of Shaming”, Association for Psychological Science Observer, 29(9). [Fiske 2016 available online] (Scholar)
  • Franklin, Allan, 1989, “The Epistemology of Experiment”, in David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Schaffer (eds.), The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 437–460. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1994, “How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 25(3): 463–491. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(94)90062-0 (Scholar)
  • Franklin, Allan and Harry Collins, 2016, “Two Kinds of Case Study and a New Agreement”, in The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, Tilman Sauer and Raphael Scholl (eds.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 319: 95–121. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_6 (Scholar)
  • Fraser, Hannah, Tim Parker, Shinichi Nakagawa, Ashley Barnett, and Fiona Fidler, 2018, “Questionable Research Practices in Ecology and Evolution”, Jelte M. Wicherts (ed.), PLoS ONE, 13(7): e0200303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200303 (Scholar)
  • Freedman, Leonard P., Iain M. Cockburn, and Timothy S. Simcoe, 2015, “The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research”, PLoS Biology, 13(6): e1002165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 (Scholar)
  • Giner-Sorolla, Roger, 2012, “Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 562–571. doi:10.1177/1745691612457576 (Scholar)
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2018, “Statistical Rituals: The Replication Delusion and How We Got There”, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2): 198–218. doi:10.1177/2515245918771329 (Scholar)
  • Gilbert, Daniel T., Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, and Timothy D. Wilson, 2016, “Comment on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science’”, Science, 351(6277): 1037–1037. doi:10.1126/science.aad7243 (Scholar)
  • Goldman, Alvin I., 1999, Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford: Clarendon. doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001 (Scholar)
  • Gómez, Omar S., Natalia Juristo, and Sira Vegas, 2010, “Replications Types in Experimental Disciplines”, in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM ’10, Bolzano-Bozen, Italy: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1852786.1852790 (Scholar)
  • Hackett, B., 2005, “Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research”, Social Studies of Science, 35(5): 787–826. doi:10.1177/0306312705056045 (Scholar)
  • Haller, Heiko, and Stefan Krauss, 2002, “Misinterpretations of Significance: a Problem Students Share with Their Teachers?” Methods of Psychological Research—Online, 7(1): 1–20. [Haller & Kraus 2002 available online] (Scholar)
  • Hartgerink, Chris H.J., Robbie C.M. van Aert, Michèle B. Nuijten, Jelte M. Wicherts, and Marcel A.L.M. van Assen, 2016, “Distributions of p-Values Smaller than .05 in Psychology: What Is Going On?”, PeerJ, 4(April): e1935. doi:10.7717/peerj.1935 (Scholar)
  • Hendrick, Clyde, 1991. “Replication, Strict Replications, and Conceptual Replications: Are They Important?”, in Neuliep 1991: 41–49. (Scholar)
  • Ioannidis, John P. A., 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, PLoS Medicine, 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 (Scholar)
  • Ioannidis, John P. A., Daniele Fanelli, Debbie Drake Dunne, and Steven N. Goodman, 2015, “Meta-Research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices”, PLOS Biology, 13(10): e1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 (Scholar)
  • Jennions, Michael D. and Anders Pape Møller, 2003, “A Survey of the Statistical Power of Research in Behavioral Ecology and Animal Behavior”, Behavioral Ecology, 14(3): 438–445. doi:10.1093/beheco/14.3.438 (Scholar)
  • John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec, 2012, “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling”, Psychological Science, 23(5): 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 (Scholar)
  • Kaiser, Jocelyn, 2018, “Plan to Replicate 50 High-Impact Cancer Papers Shrinks to Just 18”, Science, 31 July 2018. doi:10.1126/science.aau9619 (Scholar)
  • Keppel, Geoffrey, 1982, Design and Analysis. A Researcher’s Handbook, second edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Scholar)
  • Kerr, Norbert L., 1998, “HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 (Scholar)
  • Kidwell, Mallory C., Ljiljana B. Lazarević, Erica Baranski, Tom E. Hardwicke, Sarah Piechowski, Lina-Sophia Falkenberg, Curtis Kennett, et al., 2016, “Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency”, Malcolm R Macleod (ed.), PLOS Biology, 14(5): e1002456. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456 (Scholar)
  • Klein, Richard A., Kate A. Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello, Reginald B. Adams, Štěpán Bahník, Michael J. Bernstein, Konrad Bocian, et al., 2014, “Investigating Variation in Replicability: A ‘Many Labs’ Replication Project”, Social Psychology, 45(3): 142–152. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 (Scholar)
  • Lakens, Daniel, Federico G. Adolfi, Casper J. Albers, Farid Anvari, Matthew A. J. Apps, Shlomo E. Argamon, Thom Baguley, et al., 2018, “Justify Your Alpha”, Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3): 168–171. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0311-x (Scholar)
  • Longino, Helen E., 1990, Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy”, in Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, Lynn Hankinson Nelson and Jack Nelson (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 39–58. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1742-2_3 (Scholar)
  • –––, 1997, “Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology: Helen E. Longino”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1): 19–35. doi:10.1111/1467-8349.00017 (Scholar)
  • Lykken, David T., 1968, “Statistical Significance in Psychological Research”, Psychological Bulletin, 70(3, Pt.1): 151–159. doi:10.1037/h0026141 (Scholar)
  • Madden, Charles S., Richard W. Easley, and Mark G. Dunn, 1995, “How Journal Editors View Replication Research”, Journal of Advertising, 24(December): 77–87. doi:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673490 (Scholar)
  • Makel, Matthew C., Jonathan A. Plucker, and Boyd Hegarty, 2012, “Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 537–542. doi:10.1177/1745691612460688 (Scholar)
  • MacCoun, Robert J. and Saul Perlmutter, 2017, “Blind Analysis as a Correction for Confirmatory Bias in Physics and in Psychology”, in Psychological Science Under Scrutiny, Scott O. Lilienfeld and Irwin D. Waldman (eds.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 295–322. doi:10.1002/9781119095910.ch15 (Scholar)
  • Martin, B., 1992, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science”, Prometheus, 10(1): 83–98. doi:10.1080/08109029208629515 (Scholar)
  • Masicampo, E.J. and Daniel R. Lalande, 2012, “A Peculiar Prevalence of p Values Just below .05”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(11): 2271–2279. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.711335 (Scholar)
  • Mahoney, Michael J., 1985, “Open Exchange and Epistemic Progress”,, American Psychologist, 40(1): 29–39. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.40.1.29 (Scholar)
  • Meehl, Paul E., 1967, “Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox”, Philosophy of Science, 34(2): 103–115. doi:10.1086/288135 (Scholar)
  • –––, 1978, “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4): 806–834. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.46.4.806 (Scholar)
  • Merton, Robert K., 1942 [1973], “A Note on Science and Technology in a Democratic Order”, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1–2): 115–126; reprinted as “The Normative Structure of Science”, in Robert K. Merton (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
  • Munafò, Marcus R., Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Christopher D. Chambers, Nathalie Percie du Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Jennifer J. Ware, and John P. A. Ioannidis, 2017, “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science”, Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1): 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 (Scholar)
  • Neuliep, James William (ed.), 1991, Replication Research in the Social Sciences, (Journal of social behavior and personality; 8: 6), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. (Scholar)
  • Neuliep, James W. and Rick Crandall, 1990, “Editorial Bias Against Replication Research”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 85–90 (Scholar)
  • Nosek, Brian A. and Daniël Lakens, 2014, “Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results”, Social Psychology, 45(3): 137–141. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 (Scholar)
  • Nosek, Brian A., Jeffrey R. Spies, and Matt Motyl, 2012, “Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 615–631. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 (Scholar)
  • Nosek, B. A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, et al., 2015, “Promoting an Open Research Culture”, Science, 348(6242): 1422–1425. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374, (Scholar)
  • Nosek, Brian A., Charles R. Ebersole, Alexander C. DeHaven, and David T. Mellor, 2018, “The Preregistration Revolution”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11): 2600–2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 (Scholar)
  • Nuijten, Michèle B., Chris H. J. Hartgerink, Marcel A. L. M. van Assen, Sacha Epskamp, and Jelte M. Wicherts, 2016, “The Prevalence of Statistical Reporting Errors in Psychology (1985–2013)”, Behavior Research Methods, 48(4): 1205–1226. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2 (Scholar)
  • Oakes, Michael, 1986, Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, New York: Wiley. (Scholar)
  • Open Science Collaboration (OSC), 2015, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”, Science, 349(6251): 943–951. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 (Scholar)
  • Oransky, Ivan, 2016, “Half of Biomedical Studies Don’t Stand up to Scrutiny and What We Need to Do about That”, The Conversation, 11 November 2016. [Oransky 2016 available online] (Scholar)
  • Parker, T.H., E. Main, S. Nakagawa, J. Gurevitch, F. Jarrad, and M. Burgman, 2016, “Promoting Transparency in Conservation Science: Editorial”, Conservation Biology, 30(6): 1149–1150. doi:10.1111/cobi.12760 (Scholar)
  • Pashler, Harold and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, 2012, “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253 (Scholar)
  • Peng, Roger D., 2011, “Reproducible Research in Computational Science”, Science, 334(6060): 1226–1227. doi:10.1126/science.1213847 (Scholar)
  • –––, 2015, “The Reproducibility Crisis in Science: A Statistical Counterattack”, Significance, 12(3): 30–32. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00827.x (Scholar)
  • Radder, Hans, 1996, In And About The World: Philosophical Studies Of Science And Technology, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2003, “Technology and Theory in Experimental Science”, in Hans Radder (ed.), The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 152–173. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2006, The World Observed/The World Conceived, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2009, “Science, Technology and the Science-Technology Relationship”, in Anthonie Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 65–91. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51667-1.50007-0 (Scholar)
  • –––, 2012, The Material Realization of Science: From Habermas to Experimentation and Referential Realism, Boston: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4107-2 (Scholar)
  • Rauscher, Frances H., Gordon L. Shaw, and Catherine N. Ky, 1993, “Music and Spatial Task Performance”, Nature, 365(6447): 611–611. doi:10.1038/365611a0 (Scholar)
  • Rauscher, Frances H., Gordon L. Shaw, and Katherine N. Ky, 1995, “Listening to Mozart Enhances Spatial-Temporal Reasoning: Towards a Neurophysiological Basis”, Neuroscience Letters, 185(1): 44–47. doi:10.1016/0304-3940(94)11221-4 (Scholar)
  • Ritchie, Stuart J., Richard Wiseman, and Christopher C. French, 2012, “Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect”, Sam Gilbert (ed.), PLoS ONE, 7(3): e33423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033423 (Scholar)
  • Rooney, Phyllis, 1992, “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful?”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992(1): 13–22. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1992.1.192740 (Scholar)
  • Rosenthal, Robert, 1979, “The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results”, Psychological Bulletin, 86(3): 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 (Scholar)
  • –––, 1991, “Replication in Behavioral Research”, in Neuliep 1991: 1–39. (Scholar)
  • Rosnow, Ralph L. and Robert Rosenthal, 1989, “Statistical Procedures and the Justification of Knowledge in Psychological Science”,, American Psychologist, 44(10): 1276–1284. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.10.1276 (Scholar)
  • Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, Michelle Allen, and Adrian G. Barnett, 2017, “What Incentives Increase Data Sharing in Health and Medical Research? A Systematic Review”, Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2: 4. doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9 (Scholar)
  • Rudner, Richard, 1953, “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments”, Philosophy of Science, 20(1): 1–6. doi:10.1086/287231 (Scholar)
  • Sargent, C.L., 1981, “The Repeatability Of Significance And The Significance Of Repeatability”, European Journal of Parapsychology, 3: 423–433. (Scholar)
  • Schekman, Randy, 2013, “How Journals like Nature, Cell and Science Are Damaging Science | Randy Schekman”, The Guardian, December 9, sec. Opinion, [Schekman 2013 available online] (Scholar)
  • Schmidt, Stefan, 2009, “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences”, Review of General Psychology, 13(2): 90–100. doi:10.1037/a0015108 (Scholar)
  • Silberzahn, Raphael,and Uhlmann, Eric L., 2015, “Many hands make tight work: crowdsourcing research can balance discussions, validate findings and better inform policy”, Nature, 526(7572): 189–192. (Scholar)
  • Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, 2011, “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant”, Psychological Science, 22(11): 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 (Scholar)
  • Smith, Daniel R., Ian C.W. Hardy, and Martin P. Gammell, 2011, “Power Rangers: No Improvement in the Statistical Power of Analyses Published in Animal Behaviour”, Animal Behaviour, 81(1): 347–352. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.026 (Scholar)
  • Sovacool, B. K., 2008, “Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science?Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5: 271–282. doi: 10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6 (Scholar)
  • Steel, Daniel, 2010, “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk*”, Philosophy of Science, 77(1): 14–34. doi:10.1086/650206 (Scholar)
  • Stegenga, Jacob, 2018, Medical Nihilism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
  • Steinle, Friedrich, 2016, “Stability and Replication of Experimental Results: A Historical Perspective”, in Atmanspacher and Maasen 2016b: 39–68. doi:10.1002/9781118865064.ch3 (Scholar)
  • Sterling, Theodore D., 1959, “Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance – or Vice Versa”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285): 30–34. doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 (Scholar)
  • Sutton, Jon, 2018, “Tone Deaf?”, The Psychologist, 31: 12–13. [Sutton 2018 available online] (Scholar)
  • Szucs, Denes and John P. A. Ioannidis, 2017, “Empirical Assessment of Published Effect Sizes and Power in the Recent Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology Literature”, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (ed.), PLoS Biology, 15(3): e2000797. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797 (Scholar)
  • Teira, David, 2013, “A Contractarian Solution to the Experimenter’s Regress”, Philosophy of Science, 80(5): 709–720. doi:10.1086/673717 (Scholar)
  • Vazire, Simine, 2018, “Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4): 411–417. doi:10.1177/1745691617751884 (Scholar)
  • Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, Han L. J. van der Maas, and Rogier A. Kievit, 2012, “An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 632–638. doi:10.1177/1745691612463078 (Scholar)
  • Washburn, Anthony N., Brittany E. Hanson, Matt Motyl, Linda J. Skitka, Caitlyn Yantis, Kendal M. Wong, Jiaqing Sun, et al., 2018, “Why Do Some Psychology Researchers Resist Adopting Proposed Reforms to Research Practices? A Description of Researchers’ Rationales”, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2): 166–173. doi:10.1177/2515245918757427 (Scholar)
  • Wasserstein, Ronald L. and Nicole A. Lazar, 2016, “The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose”, The American Statistician, 70(2): 129–133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 (Scholar)

Generated Mon Jun 27 04:52:18 2022