IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0175583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices

Author

Listed:
  • David Giofrè
  • Geoff Cumming
  • Luca Fresc
  • Ingrid Boedker
  • Patrizio Tressoldi

Abstract

From January 2014, Psychological Science introduced new submission guidelines that encouraged the use of effect sizes, estimation, and meta-analysis (the “new statistics”), required extra detail of methods, and offered badges for use of open science practices. We investigated the use of these practices in empirical articles published by Psychological Science and, for comparison, by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, during the period of January 2013 to December 2015. The use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) was extremely high at all times and in both journals. In Psychological Science, the use of confidence intervals increased markedly overall, from 28% of articles in 2013 to 70% in 2015, as did the availability of open data (3 to 39%) and open materials (7 to 31%). The other journal showed smaller or much smaller changes. Our findings suggest that journal-specific submission guidelines may encourage desirable changes in authors’ practices.

Suggested Citation

  • David Giofrè & Geoff Cumming & Luca Fresc & Ingrid Boedker & Patrizio Tressoldi, 2017. "The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175583
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175583
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175583&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0175583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marjan Bakker & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sixto-Costoya Andrea & Robinson-Garcia Nicolas & Leeuwen Thed & Costas Rodrigo, 2021. "Exploring the relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual-level: a methodological discussion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7149-7165, August.
    2. Lisa M Federer & Christopher W Belter & Douglas J Joubert & Alicia Livinski & Ya-Ling Lu & Lissa N Snyders & Holly Thompson, 2018. "Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Qianjin Zong & Zhihong Huang & Jiaru Huang, 2023. "Do open science badges work? Estimating the effects of open science badges on an article’s social media attention and research impacts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3627-3648, June.
    4. Heckelei, Thomas & Huettel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Rommel, Jens, 2021. "The replicability crisis and the p-value debate – what are the consequences for the agricultural and food economics community?," Discussion Papers 316369, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Giovanni Colavizza & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz & Isla Staden & Kirstie Whitaker & Barbara McGillivray, 2020. "The citation advantage of linking publications to research data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Brian Jackson, 2021. "Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, June.
    8. M. D. Ribeiro & S. M. R. Vasconcelos, 2018. "Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 719-734, February.
    9. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2021. "Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3393-3419, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruns, Stephan & Herwartz, Helmut & Ioannidis, John P.A. & Islam, Chris-Gabriel & Raters, Fabian H. C., 2023. "Statistical reporting errors in economics," MetaArXiv mbx62, Center for Open Science.
    2. Sarah Barakat & Sarah Maguire, 2022. "Accessibility of Psychological Treatments for Bulimia Nervosa: A Review of Efficacy and Engagement in Online Self-Help Treatments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-27, December.
    3. Coosje L S Veldkamp & Michèle B Nuijten & Linda Dominguez-Alvarez & Marcel A L M van Assen & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Matteo Colombo & Georgi Duev & Michèle B Nuijten & Jan Sprenger, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Peter Pütz & Stephan B. Bruns, 2021. "The (Non‐)Significance Of Reporting Errors In Economics: Evidence From Three Top Journals," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 348-373, February.
    6. Colombo, Matteo & Duev, Georgi & Nuijten, M.B. & Sprenger, Jan, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," Other publications TiSEM 075f5696-ae1a-4aae-9e17-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.