Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42774333›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

New frontiers in the p-hacking practices: assessing the effect of data peeking practice on type-I error rate through computational modeling.

Francesca Freuli, Stefano Noventa, Luigi Lombardi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Francesca FreuliDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Stefano NoventaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Luigi LombardiDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data-peeking, the practice of stopping data collection once significant results are obtained, poses a significant threat to the credibility of research by increasing the likelihood of observing and publishing false positive results. The effect of this practice on scientific reliability has traditionally been assessed through Monte-Carlo simulations, which suffer from some methodological issues (e.g., Monte-Carlo standard error is often overestimated). This paper presents a computational model that, through a series of convolutions between normal and truncated normal distributions, estimates the increase in false-positive rates due to data-peeking practice, overcoming the issues of the simulation method. The performance of the computational model was compared against Monte-Carlo simulations under different conditions, including alpha levels (0.05, 0.025, 0.01, and 0.001), sample sizes (40, 80, 160, and 320), and numbers of interim analyses (1 to 10). The results confirmed the computational model's accuracy and reliability, showing that computational values fell within two standard deviations of the simulated means. In conclusion, the proposed model not only presents an faster and error-reducing approach to estimating the effects of data-peeking practice but also provides guidelines for the development of similar models to examine other forms of p-hacking, thereby improving the understanding and study of their effects.

Indexed as

data-peekingmonte-carlo simulationp-hackingreplicability crisistype-I error rate

Identifiers

PMID42774333
PMCPMC13593820

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.