Tom E. Hardwicke's research while affiliated with University of Amsterdam and other places

... On a more general note, it should be borne in mind that that preregistration has a variety of benefits that help increase scientific rigor, but it is not a panacea (as argued by [87]). Therefore, preregistration should ideally be used together with complementary open science practices increasing transparency and confidence (see [87] for an overview). ...

... We see that statisticians and philosophers of science have an ongoing debate about the role of statistical significance in statistical inference [2,14,16,18,19]. Beyond the controversies, it seems clear that all statisticians encourage a better use of hypothesis tests and p-values by researchers. ...

... Given the increase in post-publication scrutiny in recent years, 16 ...

... Finally, this study also sheds light on psychometric and reproducibility issues in this area (Nosek et al., 2022). Speci cally, a sample size derivation based on multilevel analyses and various analytical methods, including Bayesian analysis, was devised (Arend & Schäfer 2019;Etz & Vandekerckhove, 2018). ...

... as significant), as well as it could be done mildly (e.g., suggesting positive effects from numerical trends although the authors stated that change was not statistically significant). In addition, studies with positive results are more likely to be cited than null or negative findings (i.e., citation bias), which might make it more difficult to discover negative results (Hardwicke et al., 2021). The same happens with contradictory replications and critical commentaries. ...

... Yet, looking at the fraction of published studies that were actually preregistered paints a different picture. In their recent study, Hardwicke et al. [25] found that only 3% of 188 examined articles from 2014 to 2017 which were randomly sampled from the literature included a preregistration statement, which contradicts the more positive outlook by [22,24]. Stürmer et al. [26] also found that when early career researchers were asked about questionable research practices and open science, they deemed many open science practices necessary, yet toward preregistration they expressed more reluctance: Only about half of the participants found that preregistration was fairly necessary or very necessary, and even less indicated that they planned to consider preregistering their studies in the near future. ...

... Beyond the costs to productivity, the inaccessibility and instability of many neuroimaging tools poses a wider threat to reproducibility [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] . The transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines, which to date have over 5,000 journals and 4 . ...

... Having access to the data underlying scientific studies increases the opportunity for researchers and other stakeholders to explore, validate and reproduce published findings 7,11 . In some cases, unidentified errors in the data and/ or analyses that slipped through the peer-review process can be detected 1,12 . These errors may vary in their severity, ranging from small differences in reported effect sizes to major changes in the magnitude and/or direction of effects. ...

... The knowledge of these tests will provide learners with both the ability to perform biostatistics and evaluate published research critically. As demonstrated by a survey conducted by Hardwicke and Goodman in 2020, <25% of authors used specialized statistical review in their published articles, highlighting the need for physicians and researchers to be able to critically evaluate published statistical research [10]. While there are deficits in statistical knowledge, students and residents have expressed the importance of understanding statistical concepts and incorporating research into their 1 1 1 current or future practice [5,11]. ...

... Even after assistance of the original authors, results from 13 of those articles were still not reproducible. Unpublished work by Artner and colleagues examining papers in four different journals showed similar results, as did a recent study by Hardwicke et al. [15] involving articles appearing in Psychological Science. Thus, we can safely assume that many more corrections should be published, if all errors would get detected. ...