Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359470›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Replication marketplaces would help science to become more self-correcting.

Joachim Hüffmeier, Clara Kühner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Joachim HüffmeierInstitute of Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0490-7035
Clara KühnerWilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-6264

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Independent replications are very rare in the behavioural and social sciences. This is problematic because they can help to detect 'false positives' in published research and, in turn, contribute to scientific self-correction. The lack of replication studies is, among other factors, due to a rather passive editorial approach concerning replications by many journals, which does not encourage and may sometimes even actively discourage submission of replications. In this Perspective article, we advocate for a more proactive editorial approach concerning replications and suggest introducing journal-based

Indexed as

journal policiesmeta-scienceopen sciencereplicationscientific self-correction

Identifiers

PMID39359470
PMCPMC11444786

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.