| Literature DB >> 27461041 |
Timothy H Parker1, Wolfgang Forstmeier2, Julia Koricheva3, Fiona Fidler4, Jarrod D Hadfield5, Yung En Chee4, Clint D Kelly6, Jessica Gurevitch7, Shinichi Nakagawa8.
Abstract
To make progress scientists need to know what other researchers have found and how they found it. However, transparency is often insufficient across much of ecology and evolution. Researchers often fail to report results and methods in detail sufficient to permit interpretation and meta-analysis, and many results go entirely unreported. Further, these unreported results are often a biased subset. Thus the conclusions we can draw from the published literature are themselves often biased and sometimes might be entirely incorrect. Fortunately there is a movement across empirical disciplines, and now within ecology and evolution, to shape editorial policies to better promote transparency. This can be done by either requiring more disclosure by scientists or by developing incentives to encourage disclosure.Keywords: P-hacking; confirmation bias; inflated effect size; preregistration; replication; selective reporting
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27461041 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trends Ecol Evol ISSN: 0169-5347 Impact factor: 17.712