ArticleBasic and applied social psychology2017
Results Blind Science Publishing.
Article in Basic and applied social psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.The Journal of endocrinology · 2023Review
- Teaching students to R3eason, not merely to solve problem sets: The role of philosophy and visual data communication in accessible data science education.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making.The American statistician · 2019Article
- Making 'null effects' informative: statistical techniques and inferential frameworks.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2018Article
- The publication symmetry test: a simple editorial heuristic to combat publication bias.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2018Article
- Manipulating the Alpha Level Cannot Cure Significance Testing.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Review
- Rejoinder to Responses to "Results-Blind Publishing".Basic and applied social psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Problems in science publishing involving publication bias, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and irreproducibility of reported results have been widely cited. Numerous attempts to ameliorate these problems have included statistical methods to assess and correct for publication bias, and recommendation or development of statistical methodologies to replace NHST where some journals have even instituted a policy of banning manuscripts reporting use of NHST. In an effort to mitigate these problems, a policy of "results blind evaluation" of manuscripts submitted to journals is recommended, in which results reported in manuscripts are given no weight in the decision as to the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Weight would be given
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.