Cited by 45Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic integrity and plagiarismPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Beyond questionable research methods: The role of omitted relevant research in the credibility of research.

Open access
Schmidt, Frank L.·2017·Archives of Scientific Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/arc0000033

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 120 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmidt, F. L.
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Frank L.
Venue
Archives of Scientific Psychology
Published
2017-09-25
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
32-41
ISSN
2169-3269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2758731300
Cited by
45
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Archives of Scientific Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
questionable research practices, research credibility, publication bias, research integrity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review