Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26873831›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2016

Reevaluating excess success in psychological science.

Jeroen J A van Boxtel, Christof Koch

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reply to Francis: Replicability, false alarms, and walking through doorways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jeroen J A van BoxtelSchool of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Clayton, 3800, VIC, Australia. j.j.a.vanboxtel@gmail.com.
Christof KochAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Francis (Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 21, 1180-1187, 2014) recently claimed that 82 % of articles with four or more experiments published in Psychological Science between 2009 and 2012 cannot be trusted. We critique Francis' analysis and point out the dependence of his approach on including the appropriate experiments and significance tests. We focus on one of the articles (van Boxtel & Koch, in Psychological Science, 23(4), 410-418, 2012) flagged by Francis and show that the inappropriate inclusion of experiments and tests have led Francis to mistakenly flag this article. We found that decisions about whether to include certain tests potentially affect 34 of the 44 articles analyzed by Francis. We further performed p-curve analyses on the articles discussed in Francis' analysis. We found that 9 of 44 studies showed significant evidential value, 11 studies showed insufficient evidential value, and 1 study showed evidence of p-hacking. Our reevaluation is important, because some researchers may have gained the false impression that none of the quoted articles in Psychological Science can be trusted (as stated by Francis). The analysis by Francis is most likely insufficient to warrant this conclusion for some articles and certainly is insufficient with respect to the study by van Boxtel and Koch (Psychological Science, 23, 410-418, 2012).

Indexed as

Statistical inferenceStatistics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.