Giofrè David, Cumming Geoff, Fresc Luca, Boedker Ingrid, Tressoldi Patrizio
School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175583. eCollection 2017.
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.
自2014年1月起,《心理科学》引入了新的投稿指南,鼓励使用效应量、估计和元分析(“新统计方法”),要求提供更详细的方法细节,并为采用开放科学实践颁发徽章。我们调查了《心理科学》以及作为对比的《实验心理学杂志:总论》在2013年1月至2015年12月期间发表的实证文章中这些实践方法的使用情况。在这两个期刊中,零假设显著性检验(NHST)的使用一直都非常普遍。在《心理科学》中,置信区间的使用总体上显著增加,从2013年文章的28%增至2015年的70%,开放数据(从3%增至39%)和开放材料(从7%增至31%)的提供情况也是如此。另一本期刊显示出较小或小得多的变化。我们的研究结果表明,特定期刊的投稿指南可能会鼓励作者实践中出现理想的变化。