The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research
Abstract
The veracity of substantive research claims hinges on the way experimental data are collected and analyzed. In this article, we discuss an uncomfortable fact that threatens the core of psychology's academic enterprise: almost without exception, psychologists do not commit themselves to a method of data analysis before they see the actual data. It then becomes tempting to fine tune the analysis to the data in order to obtain a desired result-a procedure that invalidates the interpretation of the common statistical tests. The extent of the fine tuning varies widely across experiments and experimenters but is almost impossible for reviewers and readers to gauge. To remedy the situation, we propose that researchers preregister their studies and indicate in advance the analyses they intend to conduct. Only these analyses deserve the label "confirmatory," and only for these analyses are the common statistical tests valid. Other analyses can be carried out but these should be labeled "exploratory." We illustrate our proposal with a confirmatory replication attempt of a study on extrasensory perception.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“If hypotheses are included in a preregistration document, then hypothesis generation must have occurred before hypothesis testing (e.g., Centre for Open Science, n. d; ; Nosek et al., 2018; Wagenmakers et al., 2012).”
From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Wagenmakers et al., 2012
Citations
Cites
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · Cited by 12,558
Journal of personality and social psychology
Armstrong, J. (1988) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(88)90126-4 · Cited by 10,544
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Wildlife Society (2011) · Wildlife Society Bulletin · doi:10.1002/(issn)1938-5463a · Cited by 5,571
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“confirmatory experiments, wonky statistics, ESP, Bayesian hypothesis test Several years ago, Ioannidis (2005) famously argued that “most published research findings are false.””
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Fildes, R. A. (1989) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(89)90106-4 · Cited by 3,956
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.225 · Cited by 3,688
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · cited 1×
“And indeed, recent results from biomedical and cancer research suggest that replication rates are lower than 50%, with some as low as 11% (Begley & Ellis, 2012; Osherovich, 2011; Prinz, Schlange, & Asadullah, 2011).”
Result
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Feynman R. P., 1974, Engineering & Science, 37, 10
- Goldacre B., 2009, Bad science
- Jeffreys H., 1961, Theory of probability
- Roediger H. L., 2012, APS Observer, 25, 9
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · Cited by 10,328
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
Promoting an open research culture
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab2374 · Cited by 2,708
Self-citationUsing Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results
Dienes, Z. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 · Cited by 1,998
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 632-638
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2123263696
- Cited by
- 1,042
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 44.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- preregistration, confirmatory analysis, exploratory analysis, data snooping, statistical validity, research integrity, extrasensory perception, replication, hypothesis testing
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
