Jennifer Murphy1, Cristian Mesquida2, Aaron R Caldwell3, Brian D Earp4,5, Joe P Warne2. 1. Centre of Applied Science for Health, Technological University Dublin, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland. x00170612@mytudublin.ie. 2. Centre of Applied Science for Health, Technological University Dublin, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland. 3. , Natick, MA, USA. 4. Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics & Health Policy, Yale University and The Hastings Center, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To improve the rigor of science, experimental evidence for scientific claims ideally needs to be replicated repeatedly with comparable analyses and new data to increase the collective confidence in the veracity of those claims. Large replication projects in psychology and cancer biology have evaluated the replicability of their fields but no collaborative effort has been undertaken in sports and exercise science. We propose to undertake such an effort here. As this is the first large replication project in this field, there is no agreed-upon protocol for selecting studies to replicate. Criticism of previous selection protocols include claims they were non-randomised and non-representative. Any selection protocol in sports and exercise science must be representative to provide an accurate estimate of replicability of the field. Our aim is to produce a protocol for selecting studies to replicate for inclusion in a large replication project in sports and exercise science. METHODS: The proposed selection protocol uses multiple inclusion and exclusion criteria for replication study selection, including: the year of publication and citation rankings, research disciplines, study types, the research question and key dependent variable, study methods and feasibility. Studies selected for replication will be stratified into pools based on instrumentation and expertise required, and will then be allocated to volunteer laboratories for replication. Replication outcomes will be assessed using a multiple inferential strategy and descriptive information will be reported regarding the final number of included and excluded studies, and original author responses to requests for raw data.
INTRODUCTION: To improve the rigor of science, experimental evidence for scientific claims ideally needs to be replicated repeatedly with comparable analyses and new data to increase the collective confidence in the veracity of those claims. Large replication projects in psychology and cancer biology have evaluated the replicability of their fields but no collaborative effort has been undertaken in sports and exercise science. We propose to undertake such an effort here. As this is the first large replication project in this field, there is no agreed-upon protocol for selecting studies to replicate. Criticism of previous selection protocols include claims they were non-randomised and non-representative. Any selection protocol in sports and exercise science must be representative to provide an accurate estimate of replicability of the field. Our aim is to produce a protocol for selecting studies to replicate for inclusion in a large replication project in sports and exercise science. METHODS: The proposed selection protocol uses multiple inclusion and exclusion criteria for replication study selection, including: the year of publication and citation rankings, research disciplines, study types, the research question and key dependent variable, study methods and feasibility. Studies selected for replication will be stratified into pools based on instrumentation and expertise required, and will then be allocated to volunteer laboratories for replication. Replication outcomes will be assessed using a multiple inferential strategy and descriptive information will be reported regarding the final number of included and excluded studies, and original author responses to requests for raw data.
Authors: B A Nosek; G Alter; G C Banks; D Borsboom; S D Bowman; S J Breckler; S Buck; C D Chambers; G Chin; G Christensen; M Contestabile; A Dafoe; E Eich; J Freese; R Glennerster; D Goroff; D P Green; B Hesse; M Humphreys; J Ishiyama; D Karlan; A Kraut; A Lupia; P Mabry; T A Madon; N Malhotra; E Mayo-Wilson; M McNutt; E Miguel; E Levy Paluck; U Simonsohn; C Soderberg; B A Spellman; J Turitto; G VandenBos; S Vazire; E J Wagenmakers; R Wilson; T Yarkoni Journal: Science Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Peder Mortvedt Isager; Robbie C M van Aert; Štěpán Bahník; Mark J Brandt; K Andrew DeSoto; Roger Giner-Sorolla; Joachim I Krueger; Marco Perugini; Ivan Ropovik; Anna E van 't Veer; Marek Vranka; Daniël Lakens Journal: Psychol Methods Date: 2021-12-20