ArticlePerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2021
Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project.
Article in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes.Psychological methods · 2025Article
- R425 first year student nurses 'experience of encounters with death of a patient during clinical placement.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Amending the literature through version control.Biology letters · 2023Article
- Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- No evidence that mandatory open data policies increase error correction.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Article
- Smart Textile Sock System for Athletes' Self-Correction during Functional Tasks: Formative Usability Evaluation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022Article
- No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2021Article
- Replications in Comparative Cognition: What Should We Expect and How Can We Improve?Animal behavior and cognition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 15 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.
Indexed as
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.