Credibilidad o barbarie: Cómo la crisis de replicación ha desatado una revolución en Psicología y otras ciencias
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.22.1.43231Palabras clave:
crisis de replicacion, revolucion de la credibilidad, prácticas cuestionables de investgación, meta-ciencia, ciencia abiertaResumen
La ciencia actual vive tiempos críticos y revolucionarios. El surgimiento de la “crisis de replicación” ha supuesto un reto estructural histórico, junto con mala práxis científica y problemas derivados con una estructura de incentivos perversa en el sistema de publicaciones. Como respuesta, se han propuesto diversas reformas en la comunidad científica conocidas como la “revolución de la credibilidad”. En este artículo revisamos estos sucesos, su cronología, características principales, y su relación entre ellos. De esta forma, buscamos divulgar y formar a los lectores en las nuevas prácticas de la comunidad científica en Psicología y otras ciencias para producir y consumir una ciencia más íntegra y replicable. En definitiva, concienciar y formar parte de una mejor comunidad científica para los retos del siglo XXI.
Descargas
Citas
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B. y Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A Billion-Dollar Donation: Estimating the Cost of Researchers’ Time Spent on Peer Review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1) Artículo 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
Alipourfard, N., Arendt, B., Benjamin, D. M., Benkler, N., Bishop, M., Burstein, M., Bush, M., Caverlee, J., Chen, Y., Clark, C., Dreber Almenberg, A., Errington, T. M., Fidler, F., Field, S., Fox, N., Frank, A., Fraser, H., Friedman, S., Gelman, B., Gentile, J., … Wu, J. (2021). Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE). SocArXiv, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/46mnb
Al-Khatib, A. y Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Stings, Hoaxes and Irony Breach the Trust Inherent in Scientific Publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4
Anderson, S. F. y Liu, X. (2023). Questionable Research Practices and Cumulative Science: The Consequences of Selective Reporting on Effect Size Bias and Heterogeneity. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000572
Ansede, M. (2024, octubre 16). La editorial Springer Nature retira 75 estudios del rector de Salamanca y sus colaboradores por prácticas fraudulentas. El País. https://elpais.com/ciencia/2024-10-16/la-editorial-springer-nature-retira-75-estudios-del-rector-de-salamanca-y-sus-colaboradores-por-practicas-fraudulentas.html
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Bartoš, F., Maier, M., Shanks, D. R., Stanley, T. D., Sladekova, M. y Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2023). Meta-analyses in Psychology often Overestimate Evidence for and Size of Effects. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), Artículo 230224. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230224
BBC Mundo. (2024, Noviembre). Quién es Robert Kennedy Jr., el activista antivacunas y heredero de la dinastía Kennedy al que Trump elige para dirigir el Departamento de Salud. BBC Mundo. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c33e815jdpxo
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Bem, D., Tressoldi, P., Rabeyron, T., y Duggan, M. (2015). Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events. F1000Research, 4, 1188. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7177.2
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., De Boeck, P., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C., Fehr, E., … Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine Statistical Significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Berberi, I., y Roche, D. G. (2022). No Evidence that Mandatory Open Data Policies Increase Error Correction. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(11), 1630–1633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01879-9
Bernal, I. y Perakakis, P. (2023). No-pay Publishing: Use Institutional Repositories. Nature, 619(7971), 698–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02315-z
Brainard, J. (2023). Fast-growing Open-Access Journals Stripped of coveted Impact Factors. Science, 379(6639), 1283–1284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0098
Brembs, B., Button, K., y Munafò, M. (2013). Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Artículo 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
Brembs, B., Huneman, P., Schönbrodt, F., Nilsonne, G., Susi, T., Siems, R., Perakakis, P., Trachana, V., Ma, L. y Rodriguez-Cuadrado, S. (2023). Replacing Academic Journals. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 230206. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230206
Bohannon, J. (2016). About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey. Science, 3. https://www.science.org/content/article/about-40-economics-experiments-fail-replication-survey
Boyce, V., Prystawski, B., Abutto, A. B., Chen, E. M., Chen, Z., Chiu, H., Ergin, I., Gupta, A., Hu, C., Kemmann, B., Klevak, N., Lua, V. Y. Q., Mazzaferro, M. M., Mon, K., Ogunbamowo, D., Pereira, A., Troutman, J., Tung, S., Uricher, R. y Frank, M. C. (2024). Estimating the Replicability of Psychology Experiments After an Initial Failure to Replicate. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), Artículo 125685. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.125685
Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P. y Haustein, S. (2023). The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access: How the Big Five Academic Publishers Profit from Article Processing Charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778–799. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Almenberg, J., Altmejd, A., Chan, T., Heikensten, E., Holzmeister, F., Imai, T., Isaksson, S., Nave, G., Pfeiffer, T., Razen, M. y Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0918
Cardeña, E. (2018). The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000236
Catazaro, M. (2023). Saudi Universities Entice Top Scientists to Switch Affiliations—Sometimes with Cash. Nature, 617(7961), 446–447. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01523-x
Chu, J. S. G. y Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed Canonical Progress in large Fields of Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(41), Articulo e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A. y Moher, D. (2018). What is a Predatory Journal? A Scoping Review. F1000Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C. L. y Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral Priming: It's All in the Mind, but Whose Mind? PloS one, 7(1), Artículo e29081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
Edwards, M. A. y Roy, S. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
Fleerackers, A., Ratcliff, C. L., Wicke, R., King, A. J. y Jensen, J. D. (2024). Public Understanding of Preprints: How Audiences Make Sense of Unreviewed Research in the News. Public Understanding of Science, 34(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241268881
Enserink, M. (2012). Final Report: Stapel Affair Points to Bigger Problems in Social Psychology. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology
Eronen, M. I. y Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586
Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E. y Nosek, B. A (2021). Investigating the Replicability of Preclinical Cancer Biology. eLife, 10, Article 71601. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601
Feynman, R. P. (1998). Cargo Cult Science*. En J. Williams (Ed.), The Art and Science of Analog Circuit Design (pp. 55–61). Newnes. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-075067062-3/50008-X
Flake, J. K., y Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
Forozish, A. O. (2024). How the Credibility Revolution Created a Paradigm Shift. Available at SSRN 4744474. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4744474
Gertler, P., Galiani, S. y Romero, M. (2018). How to Make Replication the Norm. Nature, 554(7693), 417–419. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02108-9
Gerrits, R. G., Jansen, T., Mulyanto, J., van den Berg, M. J., Klazinga, N. S. y Kringos, D. S. (2019). Occurrence and Nature of Questionable Research Practices in the Reporting of Messages and Conclusions in International Scientific Health Services Research Publications: A Structured Assessment of Publications Authored by Researchers in the Netherlands. BMJ Open, 9(5), Artículo e027903. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027903
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612457576
Gomez, C. J., Herman, A. C. y Parigi, P. (2022). Leading Countries in Global Science Increasingly Receive more Citations than other Countries Doing Similar Research. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(7), 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01351-5
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N. y Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical Tests, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Power: A guide to Misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Grossmann, A. y Brembs, B. (2021). Current Market Rates for Scholarly Publishing Services. F1000Research, 10, 20. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2
Hardwicke, T. E. y Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2023). Reducing Bias, Increasing Transparency, and Calibrating Confidence with Preregistration. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2
Haig, B. D. (2017). Tests of Statistical Significance Made Sound. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416667981
Hussey, I., Alsalti, T., Bosco, F., Elson, M. y Arslan, R. (2025). An Aberrant Abundance of Cronbach’s Alpha Values at. 70. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241287123
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings are False. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), Artículo e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Why Most Discovered True Associations are Inflated. Epidemiology, 19(5), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7
Jarke, H., Anand-Vembar, S., Alzahawi, S., Andersen, T. L., Bojanić, L., Carstensen, A., Feldman, G., Garcia-Garzon, E., Kapoor, H., Lewis, S., Todsen, A. L., Većkalov, B., Zickfeld, J. H. y Geiger, S. J. (2022). A Roadmap to Large-Scale Multi-Country Replications in Psychology. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), Artículo 57538. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.57538
Jobst, L. J., Bader, M. y Moshagen, M. (2023). A tutorial on assessing statistical power and determining sample size for structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000423
Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17
Kekecs, Z., Palfi, B., Szaszi, B., Szecsi, P., Zrubka, M., Kovacs, M., Bakos, B. E., Cousineau, D., Tressoldi, P., Schmidt, K., Grassi, M., Evans, T. R., Yamada, Y., Aczel, B., Adam-Troian, J., Albers, C. J., Alfano, M., Alicke, M. D., Alister, C., … Nosek, B. A. (2023). Raising the Value of Research Studies in Psychological Science by Increasing the Credibility of Research Reports: The Transparent Psi Project. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), Artículo 191375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191375
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Jr., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., Cabak Rédei, A., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., Elsherif, M., Breznau, N., Robertson, O., Kalandadze, T., Yu, S., Baker, B. J., O’Mahony, A., Olsnes, J. Ø.-S., Shaw, J. J., Gjoneska, B., Yamada, Y., Röer, J. P., Murphy, J., Alzahawi, S., … Evans, T. (2023). The Replication Crisis has led to Positive Structural, Procedural, and Community Changes. Communications Psychology, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2
Kruschke, J. K. (2021). Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1282-1291. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01177-7
Lakens, D. (2022). Sample Size Justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), Artículo 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267
Lakens, D. (2024). When and how to deviate from a preregistration. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), Artículo 117094. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117094
Lakens, D., Hilgard, J. y Staaks, J. (2016). On the Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses: Six Practical Recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), Artículo 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
Lakens, D., Mesquida, C., Rasti, S., y Ditroilo, M. (2024). The benefits of preregistration and registered reports. Evidence-Based Toxicology, 2(1), 2376046. https://doi.org/10.1080/2833373X.2024.2376046
Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., Behr, D., Davidov, E., De Roover, K., Jak, S., Meitinger, K., Menold, N., Muthén, B., Rudnev, M., Schmidt, P. y van de Schoot, R. (2023). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research, 110, Artículo 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805
Liverpool, L. (2023). AI Intensifies Fight against ‘Paper Mills’ that churn out Fake Research. Nature, 618(7964), 222–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01780-w
Maddi, A. y Sapinho, D. (2023). On the Culture of Open Access: The Sci-hub paradox. Scientometrics, 128(10), 5647–5658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5
Maier, M., y Lakens, D. (2022). Justify your Alpha: A Primer on two Practical Approaches. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2), 25152459221080396. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221080396
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to get Beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge University Press.
Mayoni, S. (2022, diciembre 12). Scientific publishers are reaping huge profits from the work of researchers, and the universities are paying for it. University Post – Independent of management. https://uniavisen.dk/en/scientific-publishers-are-reaping-huge-profits-from-the-work-of-researchers-and-the-universities-are-paying-for-it/
McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C. y Tackett, J. L. (2019). Abandon Statistical Significance. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1527253
Mole, B. (2024, enero 22). Top Harvard cancer researchers accused of scientific fraud; 37 studies affected. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/top-harvard-cancer-researchers-accused-of-scientific-fraud-37-studies-affected/
Nagy, T., Hergert, J., Elsherif, M., Wallrich, L., Schmidt, K., Waltzer, T., Payne, J. W., Gjoneska, B., Seetahul, Y., Wang, Y. A., Scharfenberg, D., Tyson, G., Yang, Y.-F., Skvortsova, A., Alarie, S., Graves, K. A., Sotola, L. K., Moreau, D. y Rubínová, E. (2024). Bestiary of Questionable Research Practices in Psychology. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/fhk98Nelson
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. y Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Nuijten, M. B. y Wicherts, J. M. (2024). Implementing Statcheck during Peer Review is Related to a Steep Decline in Statistical-Reporting Inconsistencies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245924125894
Nielsen, M. W. y Andersen, J. P. (2021). Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012208118
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D. y Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. y Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth over Publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569161245905
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Science, 349(6251), Artículo aac4716 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Park, M., Leahey, E. y Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and Patents are Becoming Less Disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
Parsons, S. (2022). Exploring Reliability Heterogeneity with Multiverse Analyses: Data Processing Decisions Unpredictably Influence Measurement Reliability. Meta-Psychology, 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2577
Parsons, J. A., Alperin, J. P., Bishop, D. V. M., Bowman, T. D., Crick, T., de Rijcke, S., Fortunato, S., Frassl, M. A., Guggenheim, C., Hahnel, M., Heise, C., Kramer, B., Labib, K., Loizides, F., Madan, C. R., Moore, S., O’Donnell, D. P., Rice, D. B., Ross-Hellauer, T., ... Sugimoto, C. R. (2022). A Community-Sourced Glossary of open Scholarship Terms. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01269-4
Pek, J. y Flora, D. B. (2018). Reporting Effect Sizes in Original Psychological Research: A Discussion and Tutorial. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000126
Perakakis, P. (2021, mayo 3). ¿Qué son los «transformative agreements» y qué necesitamos saber antes de utilizarlos? Pandelis Perakakis. https://pandelisperakakis.info/2021/05/03/que-son-los-transformative-agreements-y-que-necesitamos-saber-antes-de-utilizarlos/
Retraction Watch (2015, junio 16) The Retraction Watch Leaderboard. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/. Accedido el 21/10/2024
Retraction Watch. (2024, marzo 18). Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/. Recuperado el 21/10/2024.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., Barea-Arroyo, P., Berge, M. L., Bjørndal, L. D., Bursalıoğlu, A., Bühler, V., Čadek, M., Çetinçelik, M., Clay, G., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., Damnjanović, K., Dugue, T. M., Esberg, M., Esteban-Serna, C., Felder, E. N., ... Folke, T. (2021). The General Fault in our Fault Lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
Schiavone, S. R., y Vazire, S. (2023). Reckoning with our Crisis: An agenda for the Field of Social and Personality Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221101060
Silverstein, P., Elman, C., Montoya, A., McGillivray, B., Pennington, C. R., Harrison, C. H., Steltenpohl, C. N., Röer, J. P., Corker, K. S., Charron, L. M., Elsherif, M., Malicki, M., Hayes-Harb, R., Grinschgl, S., Neal, T., Evans, T. R., Karhulahti, V.-M., Krenzer, W. L. D., Belaus, A., Moreau, D., ... Syed, M. (2024). A guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 9(1), Artículo 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. y 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/10.1177/0956797611417632
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D. y Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A Key to the File-Drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. y Simmons, J. (2023, septiembre 1). [113] Data Litigada: Thank You (And An Update). Data Colada. https://datacolada.org/113
Stagge, J. H., Rosenberg, D. E., Abdallah, A. M., Akbar, H., Attallah, N. A. y James, R. (2019). Assessing Data Availability and Research Reproducibility in Hydrology and Water Resources. Scientific Data, 6, Artículo 190030. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2019.30
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A. y Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing Transparency through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616658637
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on Research Papers: Many Scientists Disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
The Economist. (2023) There is a Worrying amount of Fraud in Medical Research. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research
Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J. y Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm. PLOS Biology, 13(4), Artículo e1002128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128
Tsui, A. S. (2022). From Traditional Research to Responsible Research: The Necessity of Scientific Freedom and Scientific Responsibility for better Societies. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-062021-021303
UNESCO. (2022). Understanding open science—UNESCO Biblioteca Digital (UNESCO open science toolkit, p. 6) [Factsheet]. https://doi.org/10.54677/UTCD9302
Van den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Bakker, M., Elsherif, M., Wong, T. K. y Wicherts, J. M. (2024). Preregistration in Practice: A Comparison of Preregistered and Non-Preregistered Studies in Psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 56(6), 5424–5433. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0
Van Noorden, R. (2023a). Medicine is Plagued by Untrustworthy Clinical Trials. How many Studies are Faked or Flawed? Nature, 619(7970), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02299-w
Van Noorden, R. (2023b). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023—A new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479–481. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884
Walker, R. y Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging Trends in Peer Review—A Survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, Artículo 169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., Selker, R., Gronau, Q. F., Šmíra, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Rouder, J. N. y Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian Inference for Psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
Wagner III, J. A. (2022). The Influence of Unpublished Studies on Results of Recent Meta-Analyses: Publication Bias, the File Drawer Problem, and Implications for the Replication Crisis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(5), 639–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1922805
Wang, H., Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Abesig, J., Wu, I. X. y Tam, W. (2021). The Methodological Quality of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis on Intervention Effects: Systematic Review. BMJ, 372, Artículo 736. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736
White, N., Parsons, R., Collins, G. y Barnett, A. (2023). Evidence of Questionable Research Practices in Clinical Prediction Models. BMC Medicine, 21(1), Artículo 339. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B. y Dohle, S. (2022). Caution, preprint! Brief Explanations Allow Nonscientists to Differentiate between Preprints and Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211070559
Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A. y Park, H. (2020). Open Peer Review: Promoting Transparency in Open Science. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
Wood, B. D. K., Müller, R. y Brown, A. N. (2018). Push Button Replication: Is Impact Evaluation Evidence for International Development Verifiable? PLOS ONE, 13(12), Artículo e0209416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209416
Youyou, W., Yang, Y. y Uzzi, B. (2023). A Discipline-wide Investigation of the Replicability of Psychology Papers over the past Two Decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6), Artículo e2208863120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208863120
Zong, Q., Xie, Y. y Liang, J. (2020). Does open Peer Review Improve Citation Count? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics, 125(1), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Facultad de Psicología
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
La revista Acción Psicológica se publica bajo licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento – NoComercial (CC BY-NC). Las opiniones y contenidos de los artículos publicados en Acción Psicológica son de responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen la opinión y política científica de la revista. También serán responsables de proporcionar copias de los datos en bruto, puntuaciones, y, en general, material experimental relevante a los lectores interesados.
Copyright Note
Acción Psicológica is published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial (CC BY-NC). The opinions and contents of the articles published in Acción Psicológica are responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the scientific and political opinion of the journal. Authors are also responsible for providing copies of the raw data, ratings, and, in general, relevant experimental material to interested readers.
