Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35425627›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2022

What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences.

Julia G Bottesini, Mijke Rhemtulla, Simine Vazire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia G BottesiniDepartment of Psychology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5340-993X
Mijke RhemtullaDepartment of Psychology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2572-2424
Simine VazireDepartment of Psychology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3933-9752

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists' perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data:

Indexed as

informed consentopen scienceresearch practicesscientific integrity

Identifiers

PMID35425627
PMCPMC9006031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.