Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology
We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulati...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-05, Vol.11 (5), p.e0153049-e0153049 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0153049 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0153049 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Bierman, Dick J Spottiswoode, James P Bijl, Aron |
| description | We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulations used the same numbers of studies and trials as the original meta-analysis and the frequencies with which various QRPs were applied in the simulated experiments were based on surveys of experimental psychologists. Results of both the meta-analysis and simulations were characterized by 4 metrics, two describing the trial and mean experiment hit rates (HR) of around 31%, where 25% is expected by chance, one the correlation between sample-size and hit-rate, and one the complete P-value distribution of the database. A genetic algorithm optimized the parameters describing the QRPs, and the fitness of the simulated meta-analysis was defined as the sum of the squares of Z-scores for the 4 metrics. Assuming no anomalous effect a good fit to the empirical meta-analysis was found only by using QRPs with unrealistic parameter-values. Restricting the parameter space to ranges observed in studies of QRP occurrence, under the untested assumption that parapsychologists use comparable QRPs, the fit to the published Ganzfeld meta-analysis with no anomalous effect was poor. We allowed for a real anomalous effect, be it unidentified QRPs or a paranormal effect, where the HR ranged from 25% (chance) to 31%. With an anomalous HR of 27% the fitness became F = 1.8 (p = 0.47 where F = 0 is a perfect fit). We conclude that the very significant probability cited by the Ganzfeld meta-analysis is likely inflated by QRPs, though results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs. Our study demonstrates that quantitative simulations of QRPs can assess their impact. Since meta-analyses in general might be polluted by QRPs, this method has wide applicability outside the domain of experimental parapsychology. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0153049 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1786792626</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3f1449459b5d45c9a7ee86b90c318c35</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>1787477373</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-5256598a9da4b5e8d125ef7b3188a5303a0fa59db5d1fc68413fec94bd6d3a7e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUktv1DAQjhCIPuAfIIjEhUuWOH5zQFpVBSoVUVA5WxNnspvFiYOdRey_r7ebVi3i5Nc332M8WfaKlAtCJXm_8dswgFuMfsBFSTgtmX6SHRNNq0JUJX36YH-UncS4KUtOlRDPs6NKEsaU0sfZr2uMUzes8taH_Pt2f_AD1A7zHxgRgl3nVwHs1FmMeTfkkH_FCYplUt7FLn7Il0N-_hf6MVW0wffpMGLoehwmcPkVBBjjzq6986vdi-xZCy7iy3k9zX5-Or8--1Jcfvt8cba8LCyvxFTwiguuFegGWM1RNaTi2MqaEqUgxaRQtsB1U_OGtFYoRmiLVrO6EQ0FifQ0e3PgHZ2PZu5TNEQqIXUlKpEQFwdE42FjxuQXws546MzthQ8rAyFldmhom1qlGddJjnGrkwAqUevSJj-W8sT1cVbb1j02NiUP4B6RPn4ZurVZ-T-GKS4qqRLBu5kg-N_7HzB9Fy06BwP67a1vyaSkkibo23-g_0_HDigbfIwB23szpDT72bmrMvvZMfPspLLXD4PcF90NC70Bd5vDlw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1786792626</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Bierman, Dick J ; Spottiswoode, James P ; Bijl, Aron</creator><contributor>Laws, Keith</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bierman, Dick J ; Spottiswoode, James P ; Bijl, Aron ; Laws, Keith</creatorcontrib><description>We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulations used the same numbers of studies and trials as the original meta-analysis and the frequencies with which various QRPs were applied in the simulated experiments were based on surveys of experimental psychologists. Results of both the meta-analysis and simulations were characterized by 4 metrics, two describing the trial and mean experiment hit rates (HR) of around 31%, where 25% is expected by chance, one the correlation between sample-size and hit-rate, and one the complete P-value distribution of the database. A genetic algorithm optimized the parameters describing the QRPs, and the fitness of the simulated meta-analysis was defined as the sum of the squares of Z-scores for the 4 metrics. Assuming no anomalous effect a good fit to the empirical meta-analysis was found only by using QRPs with unrealistic parameter-values. Restricting the parameter space to ranges observed in studies of QRP occurrence, under the untested assumption that parapsychologists use comparable QRPs, the fit to the published Ganzfeld meta-analysis with no anomalous effect was poor. We allowed for a real anomalous effect, be it unidentified QRPs or a paranormal effect, where the HR ranged from 25% (chance) to 31%. With an anomalous HR of 27% the fitness became F = 1.8 (p = 0.47 where F = 0 is a perfect fit). We conclude that the very significant probability cited by the Ganzfeld meta-analysis is likely inflated by QRPs, though results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs. Our study demonstrates that quantitative simulations of QRPs can assess their impact. Since meta-analyses in general might be polluted by QRPs, this method has wide applicability outside the domain of experimental parapsychology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153049</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27144889</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Brain research ; Computer simulation ; Empirical analysis ; Experimental psychology ; Experiments ; Fitness ; Genetic algorithms ; Genetic engineering ; Humans ; Impact analysis ; Medical ethics ; Meta-analysis ; Parapsychology ; Parapsychology - methods ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Psychologists ; Psychology ; Reproductive fitness ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research Design ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; Sample Size ; Science ; Simulation ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Telepathy</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-05, Vol.11 (5), p.e0153049-e0153049</ispartof><rights>2016 Bierman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Bierman et al 2016 Bierman et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-5256598a9da4b5e8d125ef7b3188a5303a0fa59db5d1fc68413fec94bd6d3a7e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-5256598a9da4b5e8d125ef7b3188a5303a0fa59db5d1fc68413fec94bd6d3a7e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856278/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856278/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,729,782,786,866,887,2104,2930,23873,27931,27932,53798,53800</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27144889$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Laws, Keith</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bierman, Dick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spottiswoode, James P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bijl, Aron</creatorcontrib><title>Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulations used the same numbers of studies and trials as the original meta-analysis and the frequencies with which various QRPs were applied in the simulated experiments were based on surveys of experimental psychologists. Results of both the meta-analysis and simulations were characterized by 4 metrics, two describing the trial and mean experiment hit rates (HR) of around 31%, where 25% is expected by chance, one the correlation between sample-size and hit-rate, and one the complete P-value distribution of the database. A genetic algorithm optimized the parameters describing the QRPs, and the fitness of the simulated meta-analysis was defined as the sum of the squares of Z-scores for the 4 metrics. Assuming no anomalous effect a good fit to the empirical meta-analysis was found only by using QRPs with unrealistic parameter-values. Restricting the parameter space to ranges observed in studies of QRP occurrence, under the untested assumption that parapsychologists use comparable QRPs, the fit to the published Ganzfeld meta-analysis with no anomalous effect was poor. We allowed for a real anomalous effect, be it unidentified QRPs or a paranormal effect, where the HR ranged from 25% (chance) to 31%. With an anomalous HR of 27% the fitness became F = 1.8 (p = 0.47 where F = 0 is a perfect fit). We conclude that the very significant probability cited by the Ganzfeld meta-analysis is likely inflated by QRPs, though results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs. Our study demonstrates that quantitative simulations of QRPs can assess their impact. Since meta-analyses in general might be polluted by QRPs, this method has wide applicability outside the domain of experimental parapsychology.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Fitness</subject><subject>Genetic algorithms</subject><subject>Genetic engineering</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Impact analysis</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Parapsychology</subject><subject>Parapsychology - methods</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Reproductive fitness</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Telepathy</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUktv1DAQjhCIPuAfIIjEhUuWOH5zQFpVBSoVUVA5WxNnspvFiYOdRey_r7ebVi3i5Nc332M8WfaKlAtCJXm_8dswgFuMfsBFSTgtmX6SHRNNq0JUJX36YH-UncS4KUtOlRDPs6NKEsaU0sfZr2uMUzes8taH_Pt2f_AD1A7zHxgRgl3nVwHs1FmMeTfkkH_FCYplUt7FLn7Il0N-_hf6MVW0wffpMGLoehwmcPkVBBjjzq6986vdi-xZCy7iy3k9zX5-Or8--1Jcfvt8cba8LCyvxFTwiguuFegGWM1RNaTi2MqaEqUgxaRQtsB1U_OGtFYoRmiLVrO6EQ0FifQ0e3PgHZ2PZu5TNEQqIXUlKpEQFwdE42FjxuQXws546MzthQ8rAyFldmhom1qlGddJjnGrkwAqUevSJj-W8sT1cVbb1j02NiUP4B6RPn4ZurVZ-T-GKS4qqRLBu5kg-N_7HzB9Fy06BwP67a1vyaSkkibo23-g_0_HDigbfIwB23szpDT72bmrMvvZMfPspLLXD4PcF90NC70Bd5vDlw</recordid><startdate>20160504</startdate><enddate>20160504</enddate><creator>Bierman, Dick J</creator><creator>Spottiswoode, James P</creator><creator>Bijl, Aron</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160504</creationdate><title>Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology</title><author>Bierman, Dick J ; Spottiswoode, James P ; Bijl, Aron</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-5256598a9da4b5e8d125ef7b3188a5303a0fa59db5d1fc68413fec94bd6d3a7e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Fitness</topic><topic>Genetic algorithms</topic><topic>Genetic engineering</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Impact analysis</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Parapsychology</topic><topic>Parapsychology - methods</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Reproductive fitness</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Telepathy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bierman, Dick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spottiswoode, James P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bijl, Aron</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bierman, Dick J</au><au>Spottiswoode, James P</au><au>Bijl, Aron</au><au>Laws, Keith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-05-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0153049</spage><epage>e0153049</epage><pages>e0153049-e0153049</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulations used the same numbers of studies and trials as the original meta-analysis and the frequencies with which various QRPs were applied in the simulated experiments were based on surveys of experimental psychologists. Results of both the meta-analysis and simulations were characterized by 4 metrics, two describing the trial and mean experiment hit rates (HR) of around 31%, where 25% is expected by chance, one the correlation between sample-size and hit-rate, and one the complete P-value distribution of the database. A genetic algorithm optimized the parameters describing the QRPs, and the fitness of the simulated meta-analysis was defined as the sum of the squares of Z-scores for the 4 metrics. Assuming no anomalous effect a good fit to the empirical meta-analysis was found only by using QRPs with unrealistic parameter-values. Restricting the parameter space to ranges observed in studies of QRP occurrence, under the untested assumption that parapsychologists use comparable QRPs, the fit to the published Ganzfeld meta-analysis with no anomalous effect was poor. We allowed for a real anomalous effect, be it unidentified QRPs or a paranormal effect, where the HR ranged from 25% (chance) to 31%. With an anomalous HR of 27% the fitness became F = 1.8 (p = 0.47 where F = 0 is a perfect fit). We conclude that the very significant probability cited by the Ganzfeld meta-analysis is likely inflated by QRPs, though results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs. Our study demonstrates that quantitative simulations of QRPs can assess their impact. Since meta-analyses in general might be polluted by QRPs, this method has wide applicability outside the domain of experimental parapsychology.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27144889</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0153049</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2016-05, Vol.11 (5), p.e0153049-e0153049 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1786792626 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Brain research Computer simulation Empirical analysis Experimental psychology Experiments Fitness Genetic algorithms Genetic engineering Humans Impact analysis Medical ethics Meta-analysis Parapsychology Parapsychology - methods People and Places Physical Sciences Psychologists Psychology Reproductive fitness Research and Analysis Methods Research Design Research methodology Researchers Sample Size Science Simulation Social Sciences Studies Telepathy |
| title | Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-05T20%3A51%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Testing%20for%20Questionable%20Research%20Practices%20in%20a%20Meta-Analysis:%20An%20Example%20from%20Experimental%20Parapsychology&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Bierman,%20Dick%20J&rft.date=2016-05-04&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0153049&rft.epage=e0153049&rft.pages=e0153049-e0153049&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0153049&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E1787477373%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1786792626&rft_id=info:pmid/27144889&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3f1449459b5d45c9a7ee86b90c318c35&rfr_iscdi=true |