Promoting Transparent Reporting of Conflicts of Interests and Statistical Analyses at The Journal of Sex Research

References

• American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2016, May 25). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666–678. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0089-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balzarini, R. N., Dobson, K., Chin, K., & Campbell, L. (2017). Does exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Independent replications of Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) Study 2. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 191–197. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belia, S., Fidler, F., Williams, J., & Cumming, G. (2005). Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychological Methods, 10, 389–396. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, E. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., Gervais, W. M., & Hilgard, J. (2017, September 26). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/9h3nu
   Google Scholar
• Chan, M. E., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Meta-analysis and the development of knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 79–92. doi:10.1177/1745691611429355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeAngelis, C. D. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA, 284, 2237–2238. doi:10.1001/jama.284.17.2237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Epskamp, S., & Nuijten, M. B. (2016). Statcheck: Extract statistics from articles and recompute p values. R package version 1.2.2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=statcheck
   Google Scholar
• Epskamp, S., Nuijten, M. B., & Rife, S. (2016). Statcheck on the web. Retrieved from http://statcheck.io
   Google Scholar
• Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0149794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS ONE, 5(4,), e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Reis, H. T. (2017). Replicability and other features of a high-quality science: Toward a balanced and empirical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 244–253. doi:10.1037/pspi0000075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Retrieved from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science, 351(6277), 1037. doi:10.1126/science.aad7243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2010). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 1, 42–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns, M. E., Barnes, M., & Florencio, P. S. (2003). Restoring balance to industry–academia relationships in an era of institutional financial conflicts of interest: Promoting research while maintaining trust. JAMA, 289, 741–746. doi:10.1001/jama.289.6.741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601–625. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high‐powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 701–710. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D., Hilgard, J., & Staaks, J. (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4, 24. doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lalumière, M. (2016, September). Why I no longer care about p values, or the notion of “statistical significance”: A user’s perspective. Paper presented at the Canadian Sex Research Forum, Quebec City, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• LeBel, E. P., Berger, D., Campbell, L., & Loving, T. J. (2017). Falsifiability is not optional. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 254–261. doi:10.1037/pspi0000106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (in press). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://designingexperiments.com/shiny-r-web-apps/
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2017). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2017, August 24). The preregistration revolution. Retrieved from osf.io/2dxu5
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017). Reproducibility in cancer biology: Making sense of replications. eLife, 6, e23383. doi:10.7554/eLife.23383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H., Van Assen, M. A., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1205–1226. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017, September 25). A brief overview on conflict of interests. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35
   Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakaluk, J. K. (2016a). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47–54. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakaluk, J. K. (2016b). Promoting replicable sexual science: A methodological review and call for metascience. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 25, 1–8. doi:10.3138/cjhs.251-CO1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakaluk, J. K. (2017, January). What the replication crisis means for sexual science—And why sexual scientists should care. Paper presented at the Sexuality Preconference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Sakaluk, J. K., Williams, A., & Biernat, M. (2014). Analytic review as a solution to the misreporting of statistical results in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 652–660. doi:10.1177/1745691614549257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. doi:10.1037/a0029487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schönbrodt, F. D. (2015). p-checker: One-for-all p-value analyzer. Retrieved from http://shinyapps.org/apps/p-checker/.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue, the Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76–80. doi:10.1177/1745691613514755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spellman, B. (2015). A short (personal) future history of revolution 2.0. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 886–899. doi:10.1177/1745691615609918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapel, D. (2014). Faking science: A true story of academic fraud ( Trans. N. J. L. Brown.). Retrieved from https://errorstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/fakingscience-20141214.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Westfall, J. (2016). PANGEA: Power ANalysis for GEneral Anova designs. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLOS ONE, 6(11), e26828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726–728. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar