Dataset Information

Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014-2017).

ABSTRACT: Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives emphasize the benefits of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. Estimating the prevalence of such practices will help to gauge the collective impact of reform initiatives, track progress over time, and calibrate future efforts. To this end, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014 and 2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [59%, 71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183; 14%, 95% CI = [10%, 19%]), study protocols (0/188; 0%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]), raw data (4/188; 2%, 95% CI = [1%, 4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188; 1%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]) was rare. Preregistration was also uncommon (5/188; 3%, 95% CI = [1%, 5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228; 62%, 95% CI = [56%, 69%]), but conflict-of-interest statements were less common (88/228; 39%, 95% CI = [32%, 45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188; 5%, 95% CI = [3%, 8%]), and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183; 11%, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183; 7%, 95% CI = [4%, 10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish baseline prevalence estimates against which future progress toward increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research can be compared.

SUBMITTER: Hardwicke TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8785283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.

Project description:Accurately estimating infection prevalence is fundamental to the study of population health, disease dynamics, and infection risk factors. Prevalence is estimated as the proportion of infected individuals ("individual-based estimation"), but is also estimated as the proportion of samples in which evidence of infection is detected ("anonymous estimation"). The latter method is often used when researchers lack information on individual host identity, which can occur during noninvasive sampling of wild populations or when the individual that produced a fecal sample is unknown. The goal of this study was to investigate biases in individual-based versus anonymous prevalence estimation theoretically and to test whether mathematically derived predictions are evident in a comparative dataset of gastrointestinal helminth infections in nonhuman primates. Using a mathematical model, we predict that anonymous estimates of prevalence will be lower than individual-based estimates when (a) samples from infected individuals do not always contain evidence of infection and/or (b) when false negatives occur. The mathematical model further predicts that no difference in bias should exist between anonymous estimation and individual-based estimation when one sample is collected from each individual. Using data on helminth parasites of primates, we find that anonymous estimates of prevalence are significantly and substantially (12.17%) lower than individual-based estimates of prevalence. We also observed that individual-based estimates of prevalence from studies employing single sampling are on average 6.4% higher than anonymous estimates, suggesting a bias toward sampling infected individuals. We recommend that researchers use individual-based study designs with repeated sampling of individuals to obtain the most accurate estimate of infection prevalence. Moreover, to ensure accurate interpretation of their results and to allow for prevalence estimates to be compared among studies, it is essential that authors explicitly describe their sampling designs and prevalence calculations in publications.

Dataset Information

Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014-2017).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets