Literature DB >> 24497511

Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research.

Michèle B Nuijten1, Marcel A L M van Assen, Robbie C M van Aert, Jelte M Wicherts.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 24497511      PMCID： PMC3932882          DOI： 10.1073/pnas.1322149111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN： 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


× No keyword cloud information.
  2 in total

1.  US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Authors:  M Egger; G Davey Smith; M Schneider; C Minder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13
  2 in total
  3 in total

1.  Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too).

Authors:  Joost Cf de Winter; Dimitra Dodou
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists.

Authors:  Franca Agnoli; Jelte M Wicherts; Coosje L S Veldkamp; Paolo Albiero; Roberto Cubelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.