In recent years, multiple initiatives have sought to improve the transparency and reproducibility of psychological research. One example is the Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative (PRO), which aims to promote the sharing of data and code. PRO signatories pledge to provide a full review only for manuscripts that publicly share data and code, or include a justification why sharing is not possible. The punitive element of this approach attracted criticism: PRO may be perceived as coercive and could lead to negative repercussions for its signatories. Therefore we conducted a survey to assess signatories’ experiences with PRO. Contrary to the criticism, the reported experiences were predominantly positive, and 92% (117/127) of the signatories who completed the survey indicated that they would sign the initiative again today. Only 19 out of 127 respondents (15%) experienced negative reactions related to their commitment to PRO. Almost 50 respondents suggested ways in which PRO could be improved. We conclude that, from the signatories’ perspective, the benefits of the PRO initiative outweigh its drawbacks.
The need for a comparison between two proportions (sometimes called an A/B test) often arises in business, psychology, and the analysis of clinical trial data. Here we discuss two Bayesian A/B tests that allow users to monitor the uncertainty about a difference in two proportions as data accumulate over time. We emphasize the advantage of assigning a dependent prior distribution to the proportions (i.e., assigning a prior to the log odds ratio). This dependent-prior approach has been implemented in the open-source statistical software programs R and JASP. Several examples demonstrate how JASP can be used to apply this Bayesian test and interpret the results.
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative (PRO) promotes the sharing of data and code. PRO signatories pledge to provide a full review only for manuscripts that publicly share data and code, or include a justification why sharing is not possible. Since the punitive element of this approach attracted criticism, we conducted a survey to assess signatories' experiences with PRO. Contrary to the criticism, the reported experiences were predominantly positive, and 92% (117/127) of the signatories indicated that they would sign the initiative again today. Only 19 out of 127 respondents (15%) experienced negative reactions. Almost 50 respondents suggested ways in which PRO could be improved. We conclude that, from the signatories' perspective, the benefits of the PRO initiative outweigh its drawbacks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.