Prof. Dr. Felix Schönbrodt
by Angelika Stefan & Felix Schönbrodt When reading about Bayesian statistics, you regularly come across terms like “objective priors“, “prior odds”, “prior distribution”, and “normal prior”. However, it may not be intuitively clear that the meaning of “prior” differs in Continue Reading …
I’m honoured that the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS) chose me for one of the 2016 Leamer-Rosenthal Prizes for Open Social Science! This award comes with a prize of $10,000 and “recognizes important contributions by individuals in the Continue Reading …
From 17th to 22th September, the 50th anniversary congress of the German psychological association takes place in Leipzig. On previous conferences in Germany in the last two or three years, the topic of the credibility crisis and research transparency has Continue Reading …
[This is a guest post by Ned Bicare, PhD] My dear fellow scientists! “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.” This aphorism, attributed to Ronald Coase, sometimes has been used in a disrespective manner, as if it was wrong Continue Reading …
tl;dr: Optional stopping does not bias parameter estimates from a frequentist point of view if all studies are reported (i.e., no publication bias exists) and effect sizes are appropriately meta-analytically weighted. Several recent discussions on the Psychological Methods Facebook group Continue Reading …
The Psychology Department at LMU Munich continues to change the incentive structure towards reproducible and open science. The internal distribution of funding now partly is based on transparency criteria: Publications with open data, open material and pre-registrations get bonus points Continue Reading …
Engaging in open science practices increases knowledge as a common good, and ensures the reproducibility, verifiability and credibility of research. But some have the fear that on an individual strategic level (in particular from an early career perspective) engaging in Continue Reading …
If we want to shift from a closed science to an open science, there has to be change at several levels. In this process, it’s easy to push the responsibility (and the power) for reform onto “the system”: “If only Continue Reading …
If the p-value is < .05, then the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis is <5%, right? That means, a maximum of 5% of all significant results is a false-positive (that’s what we control with the α rate). Well, Continue Reading …
Yesterday, we had the first meeting of our department’s Open Science Committee. I am happy that the committee has 20 members, representing every research unit of the department, and all groups from PhD students to full professors. In the meeting, Continue Reading …