フジシマ ヨシツグ    FUJISHIMA Yoshitsugu
   藤島 喜嗣
   所属
人間社会学部 心理学科
 
生活心理研究所 所属教員
 
生活機構研究科 心理学専攻
   職種
教授
言語種別 英語
発行・発表の年月 2024/01
形態種別 学術雑誌
査読 査読あり
標題 A systematic review of conference papers presented at two large Japanese psychology conferences in 2013 and 2018: did Japanese social psychologists selectively report p < 0.05 results without peer review?
執筆形態 共著
掲載誌名 PeerJ
掲載区分国外
巻・号・頁 12:e16763
著者・共著者 Kai Hiraishi, Asako Miura, Masataka Higuchi, Yoshitsugu Fujishima, Daiki Nakamura, and Masaki Suyama
概要 We conducted a systematic review of conference papers in social psychology at two large psychology conferences in Japan: the Japanese Psychological Association and the Japanese Society for Social Psychology. The conference papers were effectively not subjected to peer review; hence, they were suitable for testing if psychologists selectively reported statistically significant findings without pressure from journal editors and reviewers. We investigated the distributions of z-values converted from the p-values reported in the articles presented at the 2013 and 2018 conferences. The z-curve analyses suggest the existence of selective reporting by the authors in 2013. The expected discovery rate (EDR) was much lower than the observed discovery rate (ODR; 7% vs. 76%, respectively), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include the ODR. However, this does not mean that the set of studies
completely lacked evidential value. The expected replication rate (ERR) was 31%; this is significantly higher than 5%, which was expected under the null hypothesis of no effect. Changes were observed between 2013 and 2018. The ERR increased (31% to 44%), and the EDR almost doubled (7% to 13%). However, the estimation of the maximum false discovery rate (FDR; 68% in 2013 and 35% in 2018) suggested that a substantial proportion of the reported findings were false positives. Overall, while
social psychologists in Japan engaged in selective reporting, this does not mean that the entire field was covered with false positives. In addition, slight signs of improvement were observed in how they reported their findings. Still, the evidential value of the target studies was weak, even in 2018, allowing for no optimism.
researchmap用URL https://peerj.com/articles/16763/