Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology
Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9
复制
发表时间：
2012-04-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Francis, Gregory
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Francis, Gregory
长期以来，经验复制一直被认为是科学现象的最终仲裁者，但当有证据表明存在出版偏见时，复制就被破坏了。在一组实验中，当观察到的拒绝零假设的数量超过预期的拒绝数量时，可以发现发表偏倚的证据。这个测试的应用揭示了两个著名的实验心理学研究中的出版偏见的证据，这些研究旨在揭示超感知觉的证据，并表明科学方法的严重局限性。出版偏见的存在表明，这些调查不能被视为对这种现象的适当科学研究，因为该领域无法获得关键数据。如果实验心理学家开始使用贝叶斯数据分析技术，出版偏见可以部分避免。
Empirical replication has long been considered the final arbiter of phenomena in science, but replication is undermined when there is evidence for publication bias. Evidence for publication bias in a set of experiments can be found when the observed number of rejections of the null hypothesis exceeds the expected number of rejections. Application of this test reveals evidence of publication bias in two prominent investigations from experimental psychology that have purported to reveal evidence of extrasensory perception and to indicate severe limitations of the scientific method. The presence of publication bias suggests that those investigations cannot be taken as proper scientific studies of such phenomena, because critical data are not available to the field. Publication bias could partly be avoided if experimental psychologists started using Bayesian data analysis techniques.