Dataset Information

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy.

ABSTRACT: Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on one aspect of this question, namely the rate of inconsistencies in statistical reporting. Previous research has examined the extent to which published articles in psychology and other behavioral sciences present statistical inconsistencies in reporting the results of NHST. In this study, we used the R package statcheck to detect statistical inconsistencies in x-phi, and compared rates of inconsistencies in psychology and philosophy. We found that rates of inconsistencies in x-phi are lower than in the psychological and behavioral sciences. From the point of view of statistical reporting consistency, x-phi seems to do no worse, and perhaps even better, than psychological science.

SUBMITTER: Colombo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5896892 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy.

Colombo Matteo M Duev Georgi G Nuijten Michèle B MB Sprenger Jan J

PloS one 20180412 4

Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on o ...[more]

PMID: 29649220

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe analysis of large-scale gene expression data is a fundamental approach to functional genomics and the identification of potential drug targets. Results derived from such studies cannot be trusted unless they are adequately designed and reported. The purpose of this study is to assess current practices on the reporting of experimental design and statistical analyses in gene expression-based studies.MethodsWe reviewed hundreds of MEDLINE-indexed papers involving gene expression data analysis, which were published between 2003 and 2005. These papers were examined on the basis of their reporting of several factors, such as sample size, statistical power and software availability.ResultsAmong the examined papers, we concentrated on 293 papers consisting of applications and new methodologies. These papers did not report approaches to sample size and statistical power estimation. Explicit statements on data transformation and descriptions of the normalisation techniques applied prior to data analyses (e.g. classification) were not reported in 57 (37.5%) and 104 (68.4%) of the methodology papers respectively. With regard to papers presenting biomedical-relevant applications, 41(29.1 %) of these papers did not report on data normalisation and 83 (58.9%) did not describe the normalisation technique applied. Clustering-based analysis, the t-test and ANOVA represent the most widely applied techniques in microarray data analysis. But remarkably, only 5 (3.5%) of the application papers included statements or references to assumption about variance homogeneity for the application of the t-test and ANOVA. There is still a need to promote the reporting of software packages applied or their availability.ConclusionRecently-published gene expression data analysis studies may lack key information required for properly assessing their design quality and potential impact. There is a need for more rigorous reporting of important experimental factors such as statistical power and sample size, as well as the correct description and justification of statistical methods applied. This paper highlights the importance of defining a minimum set of information required for reporting on statistical design and analysis of expression data. By improving practices of statistical analysis reporting, the scientific community can facilitate quality assurance and peer-review processes, as well as the reproducibility of results.

Project description:For scientific, ethical and economic reasons, experiments involving animals should be appropriately designed, correctly analysed and transparently reported. This increases the scientific validity of the results, and maximises the knowledge gained from each experiment. A minimum amount of relevant information must be included in scientific publications to ensure that the methods and results of a study can be reviewed, analysed and repeated. Omitting essential information can raise scientific and ethical concerns. We report the findings of a systematic survey of reporting, experimental design and statistical analysis in published biomedical research using laboratory animals. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting research on live rats, mice and non-human primates carried out in UK and US publicly funded research establishments. Detailed information was collected from 271 publications, about the objective or hypothesis of the study, the number, sex, age and/or weight of animals used, and experimental and statistical methods. Only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used. Appropriate and efficient experimental design is a critical component of high-quality science. Most of the papers surveyed did not use randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%), to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods described their methods and presented the results with a measure of error or variability. This survey has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to improve experimental design and reporting in publications describing research using animals. Scientific publication is a powerful and important source of information; the authors of scientific publications therefore have a responsibility to describe their methods and results comprehensively, accurately and transparently, and peer reviewers and journal editors share the responsibility to ensure that published studies fulfil these criteria.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Dataset Information

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy.

Publications

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets