good data practices jelte m. wicherts 1. 2 source: wicherts, j. m. (2011). psychology must learn a...
TRANSCRIPT
Integrity in black and white
3
Uninterested in prestigeCritical of own resultsReliable and rigorousOpen and honestInterested in qualitySeeks “truth”
Good
Interested in prestigeCritical of results of othersUnreliable and sloppySecretive and dishonestInterested in quantitySeeks support for own
theories
Dr. Evil
?
4
Integrity in 50 shades of grey
Source: Wicherts, J. M. & Veldkamp, C.L.S. (2013). De vijftig tinten grijs van wetenschappelijke integriteit. De Psycholoog.
Sloppy Science
Top Science
A former professor:“I was getting better and better in using techniques to improve poor results. […] What I did was not as white as snow, but it was not pitch-dark either. It was grey and it was common. How else could all the others get all those beautiful results? […] After years of balancing on the cliff, the grey became darker black, and finally I fell all the way down.”
Source: D. Stapel, 2012, Ontsporing [Derailment] p. 143-144; my translation
6
Commonality: Scientists openly share findings with colleagues.
Secrecy: Scientists protect their newest findings to ensure priority in publishing [..]
Universalism: Scientists evaluate research only on its merit, i.e., according to accepted standards of the field.
Particularism: Scientists assess new knowledge […] based on reputation […] of the individual or research group.
Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14
Survey among 3,247 US scientists, asking:1) Whether they subscribed to norms of “good science”2) Whether they behaved according to these norms3) Whether their typical colleague behaved according to
these norms
Norms vs. Counternorms
7
Governance: Scientists are responsible for the direction and control of science through governance, self-regulation and peer review.
Administration: Scientists rely on administrators to direct the scientific enterprise through management decisions.
Quality: Scientists judge each others’ contributions to science primarily on the basis of quality.
Quantity: Scientists assess each others’ work primarily on the basis of numbers of publications and grants.
Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14
Disinterestedness: Scientists are motivated by the desire for knowledge and discovery.
Self-Interestedness: Scientists compete with others in the same field for funding and recognition of their achievements.
Organized Skepticism: Scientists consider all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work.
Organized Dogmatism: Scientists invest their careers in promoting their own most important findings, theories, or innovation.
8
Do researchers regard their colleagues highly?
Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14
norm>counternorm norm=counternorm norm<counternorm
9
Do researchers share data upon request?
In 2005, we requested the raw data from 141 papers published in four APA journals for use in a study of the effects of outliers on the outcome of data analyses.
Source: Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726-728.
10
Reasons for refusal
1. This is an ongoing project/ IRB does not allow it2. I have no time to do this…I’m up for tenure3. My research assistant/postdoc/student left4. I recently moved, I have a new computer!5. “I am afraid your request is not possible”
11
Reasons to be patient…
1. This will take me some time, I’ll get back to you2. I’ll send you the data tonight, tomorrow, next
week, next month, ASAP3. I’ll send you the data within a few days
2925 days and still counting!
Source: Bakker, M. & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). (Mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666-678.
Results: 128 papers (50%) contained at least one error39 papers (15%) contained at least one error related to p = .05Conclusion: Errors predominantly led to “better” results
12
Method: a representative sample of 257 papersRecomputed 4720 p-values from NHST and checked for consistency
p = .06
Are statistical results checked by (co-)authors and reviewers?
Reporting errors in papers from which data were or were not shared
13
DATA SHARED (N=21)
Source: 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, e 26828.
DATA NOT SHARED (N=28)
Gross reporting errors (around p=.05)
14
DATA NOT SHARED (N=28) DATA SHARED (N=21)
Source: 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, e 26828.
15
Errors and data sharing
Haphazard data documentation plays a role in reluctance to share and occurrence of errors.
Poor data documentation also suggests that authors hardly share data with co-authors.
17
.001-.01 .01-.02 .02-.03 .03-.04 .04-.05 >.050
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No Yes
range of recalculated p-values
freq
uen
cy o
f re
su
lts p
resen
ted
as
p<
.05
Data shared?
10 errors!
significant non-significant
Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence
Source: 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, e 26828.
Human factors in statisticsStatistical analyses are complex and prone to
human error Our statistical intuitions are poor (e.g., we
tend believe in the law of small numbers)Researchers who conduct
these analyses have clear expectations about outcomes
18
Solution 1: The co-pilot model
• Let your co-authors (or colleagues) replicate your analyses
• Openness concerning analytic choices
• Requires that you document data well
• Facilitates sharing andpublication of data
19
Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7.Wicherts, J. M. & Bakker, M. (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40, 73-76.
20
includes ethics chap-
ter90%
no ethics chapter10%
30 methods books
no ethics chapter100%
21 statistics books
discusses data storage
10%
ignores data
storage90%
30 methods book
ignores data storage100%
21 statistics books
Solution 2: Better training
21
Solution 3: Just publish the data
Wicherts, J. M. & Bakker, M. (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40, 73-76.