The need for open science practices and well-conducted replications in the field of gambling studies

References

• Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bem, D. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 171–204). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, M. J., Ijzerman, H., Dijksterhius, A., Rarach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., … Van’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., … Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 637–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 95–121). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (thus far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 5(4), Article e10068.
   PubMedGoogle 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 288–299.
   Google Scholar
• Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2017). Maximizing the reproducibility of your research. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 1–21). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1991). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 1–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.
   Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2014). P-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 666–681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123–1128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, T. D., Carter, E. C., & Doucouliagos, H. (2018). What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1325–1346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsang, E. W., & Kwan, K. M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 759–780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl, M. J. A., Davis, C. G., & Hollingshead, S. J. (2017). How much have you won or lost? Personalized behavioral feedback about gambling expenditures regulates play. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 437–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar