Page 36 - Demo

36%u5b78%u9580%u767c%u5c55%u7684%u56f0%u5883%u8207%u6311%u6230Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Sch%u00f6nbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719-748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716Patil, P., Peng, R. D., & Leek, J. T. (2016). What should researchers expect when they replicate studies? A statistical view of replicability in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616646366Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632Steltenpohl, C. N., Montilla Doble, L. J., Basnight-Brown, D. M., Dutra, N. B., Belaus, A., Kung, C.-C., Onie, S., Seernani, D., Chen, S.-C., & Burin, D. I. (2021). Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science global engagement task force report. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 22968. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.22968Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454-6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113