2020
An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014–2017)
Abstract: Serious concerns about research quality have catalysed a number of reform initiatives intended to improve transparency and reproducibility and thus facilitate self-correction, increase efficiency and enhance research credibility. Meta-research has evaluated the merits of some individual initiatives; however, this may not capture broader trends reflecting the cumulative contribution of these efforts. In this study, we manually examined a random sample of 250 articles in order to estimate the prevalence of a ran…
View preprint versions
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
149
32
32
15
Citation Types
22
220
6
1
Year Published
2018
2026
Publication Types
Select...
124
50
14
3
Relationship
11
180
Authors
Journals
Cited by 183 publications
(249 citation statements)
References 52 publications
22
220
6
1
“…Unfortunately, only one meta-analysis shared the analysis script. This result is in line with previous research (Hardwicke, Thibault, et al, 2020b;Hardwicke, Wallach, et al, 2020c;Polanin et al, 2020;Wallach et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Unfortunately, only one meta-analysis shared the analysis script. This result is in line with previous research (Hardwicke, Thibault, et al, 2020b;Hardwicke, Wallach, et al, 2020c;Polanin et al, 2020;Wallach et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Unfortunately, only one meta-analysis shared the analysis script. This result is in line with previous research (Hardwicke et al, 2020b;Hardwicke et al, 2020c;Polanin et al, 2020;Wallach et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Yet, an overwhelming majority of the studies included did not have a data availability statement, preregistration statement, link to an accessible protocol, analysis script availability statement, or material availability statement. These findings are consistent with prior reports of reproducibility and transparency in the medical ,10,12,14 and surgical literature. 7,8,11…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
