Discussing Statistical Inconsistencies in Research Papers and Correcting Previous Inaccuracies

In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted from this approach, which a team of researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.

Some of the topics covered:

• Trump (of course)
• A summary of the preprint
• The GRIM test to detect inconsistencies
• The researchers that accidently administered the equivalent of 300 cups of coffee to study participants
• How do we prevent inconsistent reporting?
• 21 word solution for research transparency
• Journals mandating statistical inconsistency checks, such as 'statcheck'

Links

The pre-print
https://peerj.com/preprints/2748/

'The grad student that didn't say no' blog post
http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no

The caffeine study
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-38744307

Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group lab handbook (see page 6 for open science practices)
http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/expsych/documents/targ/TARG%20Handbook%20161128.pdf

21 word solution
http://spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_26(2).pdf

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account
https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz