The following article was recently published by PLoS ONE.
Title
Authors
David Giofrè
Liverpool John Moores University (UK)
Geoff Cumming
La Trobe University (Australia)
Luca Fresc
University of Padova (Italy)
Ingrid Boedker
University of Liverpool (UK)
Patrizio Tressoldi
University of Padova (Italy)
Source
PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175583
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175583
Abstract
From January 2014, Psychological Science introduced new submission guidelines that encouraged the use of effect sizes, estimation, and meta-analysis (the “new statistics”), required extra detail of methods, and offered badges for use of open science practices. We investigated the use of these practices in empirical articles published by Psychological Science and, for comparison, by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, during the period of January 2013 to December 2015. The use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) was extremely high at all times and in both journals. In Psychological Science, the use of confidence intervals increased markedly overall, from 28% of articles in 2013 to 70% in 2015, as did the availability of open data (3 to 39%) and open materials (7 to 31%). The other journal showed smaller or much smaller changes. Our findings suggest that journal-specific submission guidelines may encourage desirable changes in authors’ practices.
Direct to Full Text Article
About Gary Price
