Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:20:20.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2022

J. Scott Armstrong  and
Kesten C. Green
J. Scott Armstrong
Affiliation:
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Kesten C. Green
Affiliation:
University of South Australia
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Scientific Method
A Guide to Finding Useful Knowledge
 , pp. 176 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeler, J., Nosenzo, D., & Raymond, C. (2019). Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica, 87 (4), 1115–1153.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., & Abramowitz, C. V. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5 (3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 (Fall), 390–404.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (5th Ed.). American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R. (2003). The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies. American Psychology Society, 14 (1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Bonham, A. J., Kung, Y.-H., & Bailey, N. (2010). Assessing the merits and faults of holistic and disaggregated judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 250–270.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R., Shaffer, V. A., & Dawes, R. M. (2006). Comparing holistic and disaggregated ratings in the evaluation of scientific presentations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 429–439.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1970), How to avoid exploratory research, Journal of Advertising Research, 10 (4), 27–30.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1977). Social irresponsibility in management, Journal of Business Research, 5 (3), 185–213.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science, 25 (5), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980a). The seer-sucker theory: The value of experts in forecasting, Technology Review, 83 (June/July), 16–24.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980b). Advocacy as a scientific strategy: The Mitroff myth. Academy of Management Review, 5 (4), 509–511.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980c). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige, Interfaces, 10, 80–86.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980d). Teacher vs. learner responsibility in management education. Working paper. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.647802.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1982a). Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 197–199.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1982b). Is review by peers as fair as it appears? Interfaces, 12 (5), 62–74.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1983). Cheating in management science, Interfaces, 13 (4), 20–29.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1985). Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. 2nd ed., New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1991). Prediction of consumer behavior by experts and novices. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 251–256.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1996). Management folklore and management science: On portfolio planning, escalation bias, and such. Interfaces, 26 (4) 28–42.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63–84.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2001a). Evaluating forecasting methods. In Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2001b). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2001c). Role playing: A method to forecast decisions. In Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2006). How to make better forecasts and decisions: Avoid face-to-face meetings, Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, 5 (Fall), 3–15.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Significance tests harm progress in forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 321–327.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2010). Persuasive Advertising. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2012a). Illusions in regression analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 28 (3), 689–694.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2012b). Predicting job performance: The Moneyball factor, Foresight, 25, 31–34.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (2012c). Natural learning in higher education, in Seel, N. M., ed., Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pp. 2426–2433. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Brodie, R. J. (1994). Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: Empirical results, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 73–84.Google Scholar
Armstrong., J. S., & Green, K. C. (2012). Demand forecasting: Evidence-based methods. Posted on Scholarly Commons and other repositories.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2018). Forecasting methods and principles: Evidence-based checklists. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 28, 103–159.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2019). Data models for forecasting: No reason to expect improved accuracy. ResearchGate, 1–4. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10150.37441.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Hubbard, R. (1991). Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication of controversial findings? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 136–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Pagell, R. (2003). Reaping benefits from management research: Lessons from the forecasting principles project. Interfaces, 33 (6), 91–111.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Patnaik, S. (2009). Using quasi-experimental data to develop empirical generalizations for persuasive advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 49 (2), 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Schultz, R. L. (1993). Principles involving marketing policies: An empirical assessment. Marketing Letters, 4 (3), 253–265.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., Brodie, R., & Parsons, A. (2001). Hypotheses in marketing science: Literature review and publication audit, Marketing Letters, 12 (2), 171–187.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., Coviello, N., & Safranek, B. (1993). Escalation bias: Does it extend to marketing? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (3), 247–253.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., Green, K. C., & Soon, W. (2008). Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces, 38, 382–405.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., Du, R., Green, K. C., et al. (2016). Predictive validity of evidence-based persuasion principles. European Journal of Marketing, 50, 276–293 (followed by Commentaries, pp. 294–316).Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. Available at www.jstor.org/stable/2295952Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193 (5), 31–35.Google Scholar
Avorn, J. (2004). Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. (1620 [1863]). The New Organon: Or the True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. In The Works of Francis Bacon (Vol. VIII) being the Translations of the Philosophical Works Vol. I by J. Spedding, J. R. Ellis, , & D. D.Heath, , eds., Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Baker, D., Lidster, K., Sottomayor, A., et al. (2014). Two years later: Journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies. PLOS Biology, 12 (1): e1001756.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? A Nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the “crisis” rocking science and what they think will help. Nature, 533 (26 May), 452–454.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2008). Michael J. Mahoney (1946–2006). Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 12 (1&2), 31–33.Google Scholar
Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery, Science, 134, 596–602.Google Scholar
Barreira, P., Basilico, M. & Bolotnyy, V. (2018). Graduate student mental health: Lessons from American economics departments. Harvard University Working Paper.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (1975). Rational processing or rationalization? The effect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (1), 176–184.Google Scholar
Baxt, W. G., Waeckerie, J. F., Berlin, J. A., et al. (1998). Who reviews reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32 (3), 310–317.Google Scholar
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489, 179.Google Scholar
Beaman, A. L. (1991). An empirical comparison of meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (3), 252–257.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical Logic. New York, NY. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Beck, T., Bühren, C., Frank, B., et al. (2020). Can honesty oaths, peer interaction, or monitoring mitigate lying? Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 467–484.Google Scholar
Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9 (4), 715–725.Google Scholar
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483 (29 March), 531–533.Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2014). More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, A., & Hill, T. P. (2011). A basic theory of Benford’s Law. Probability Surveys, 8, 1–126.Google Scholar
Berger, J., & Pope, D. (2011). Can losing lead to wining? Management Science, 57 (5), 817–827.Google Scholar
Berninger, M., Kiesel, F., Schiereck, D., et al. (2018). The Readability of Finance Articles and the Number of Citations: Can Articles Be Too Straightforward to Be Cited? Working Paper (Revised 10 Jan 2020). Available at SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3024694Google Scholar
Berschscheid, E., Baron, R. S., Dermer, M., et al. (1973). Anticipating informed consent: An empirical approach. American Psychologist, 28, 913–925.Google Scholar
Beyer, J. M. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociological Quarterly, 19, 68–88.Google Scholar
Bijmolt, T. H. A., Heerde, H. J. van, & Pieters, R. G. M. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 141–156.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2018). Thomas Kuhn. In Zalta, Edward N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2013), The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, Journal of Informetrics, 7 (4), 914–923.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (2009). The Man Who Shocked the World. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Boxer, A. (2020). A Scheme of Heaven: Astrology and the Birth of Science. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Boylan, J. B., Goodwin, P., Mohammadipour, M., et al. (2015). Reproducibility in forecasting research. International Journal of Forecasting, 31 (1), 79–90.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. (1661). The Sceptical Chymist. Crook: London, England. Available at https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pxhKAQAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=Robert+Boyle+1661+sceptical+chymist&ots=iQwDaGcy-8&sig=gggy-ZuNfMVV3SfVdu_KT78mnL4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Boyle%201661%20sceptical%20chymist&f=falseGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J. V. (1981). Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18 (1), 31–34.Google Scholar
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–12.Google Scholar
Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Brush, S. G. (1977). The search for quality in university research publications. Social Studies of Science, 7, 395–400.Google Scholar
Budd, J. M., Stevert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 296–297.Google Scholar
Burdick, A. (2017). “Paging Dr. Fraud”: The fake publishers that are ruining science. The New Yorker, March 22.Google Scholar
Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263 (10), 1323–1329.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1945). Science – The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Calabrese, E. J. (2019). The troubled history of cancer risk assessment. Regulation, Spring, 16–19.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67–90.Google Scholar
Carlquist, S. (2009). Darwin on island plants. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161 (1), 20–25.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. E., & Doherty, T. S. (2019). Meat consumption and health: Food for thought. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171 (10), 767–768.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J. (2020). Mistakes were made (but not by me). In Sternberg, R. J., ed., My Biggest Research Mistake: Adventures and Misadventures in Psychological Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 197–200.Google Scholar
Cecil, S., & Griffin, E. (1985). The role of legal policies in data sharing. In Fienberg, S. E., Martin, M. E., & Straf, M. L., eds., Sharing Research Data . Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 148–198.Google Scholar
Center, F. J., & National Research Council (2011). Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Cerf, C., & Navasky, V. (1998). The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation. New York, NY: Villard.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science, 4th ed. University of Queensland Press. Available at www.amazon.com.au/dp/B00CKD9ALK/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_XZKB37KN1CXE4AMDYTA4Google Scholar
Chamberlin, E. H. (1948). An experimental imperfect market. Journal of Political Economy, 56 (2), 95–108. Available at www.jstor.org/stable/1826387Google Scholar
Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Reprinted in 1965 in Science, 148, 754–759.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, T. C. (1899). Lord Kelvin’s address on the age of the Earth as an abode fitted for life, Science, 9 (235), 889–901.Google Scholar
Chevassus-Au-Louis, N. (2019). Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J., & Beach, L. R. (1984). The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. American Psychologist, 39 (1), 75–78.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (01), 119–135.Google Scholar
Clancy, D. (2017). A list of colleges that don’t take Federal money. Dean Clancy Blog, December 2, updated August 10 2020. Available at https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-donttake-federal-money/Google Scholar
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42 (2), 288–325.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (4), 958–977.Google Scholar
Committee on Science, Space and Technology (2019). Hearing charter: Strengthening transparency or silencing science? The future of science in EPA rulemaking. US House of Representatives, November 13, 2318 Rayburn House Office Building.Google Scholar
CRASH trial collaborators (2004). Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10 008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): Randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet, 364 (9442), 1321–1328.Google Scholar
Crichton, M. (1975). Medical obfuscation: Structure and function. New England Journal of Medicine, 293 (24), 1257–1259.Google Scholar
Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In Gerd, Gigerenzer & Peter, M. Todd, , eds., Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Davidoff, F., Batalden, P., Stevens, D., et al. for the SQUIRE development group (2008). Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Safe Health Care, 17 (Suppl I), i3–i9.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–667.Google Scholar
Delgado, P., Vargas, C. Ackerman, R., et al. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38.Google Scholar
Dewald, W. G., Thursby, J. G., & Anderson, R. G. (1986). Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project. The American Economic Review, 76 (4), 587–603.Google Scholar
Diamond, J., & Robinson, J. A. (eds) (2010). Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys:The Tailored Design Method, 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
DiNardo, J. (2018). Natural experiments and quasi-natural experiments. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dinges, D. F. (1992). Adult napping and its effects on ability to function. In C. Stampi, , ed., Why We Nap. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, pp. 118–134.Google Scholar
Dockery, D. W., Pope, C. A., Xu, X., et al. (1993). An association between air pollution and mortality in six US cities. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1753–1759.Google Scholar
Doucouliagos, C., & Stanley, T. D. (2009). Publication selection bias in minimum-wage research? A meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (2), 406–428.Google Scholar
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., et al., (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38 (e130).Google Scholar
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16 (12), 939–944.Google Scholar
Ducoin, Francis J., D.D.S., et al. v. Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, in her official capacity as the State Surgeon General, et al. (2009). 2003 CA 696.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, F. J. (2008). The Scientist as Rebel. New York, NY: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
The Economist (2016). Why research papers have so many authors. The Economist, 421 (9017), Nov. 26, p. 76.Google Scholar
Eichorn, P., & Yankauer, A. (1987). Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. American Journal of Public Health, 77 (8), 1011–1012.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. (1972). Alchemy in the behavioral sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (3), 367–378.Google Scholar
Epstein, D. (2013). The Sports Gene. New York, NY: Current.Google Scholar
Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7 (6), 746–749.Google Scholar
Erlingsson, S. J. (2009). The Plymouth Laboratory and the institutionalization of experimental zoology in Britain in the 1920s. Journal of the History of Biology, ( 42 ), 151–183.Google Scholar
Evans, J. T., Nadjari, H. I., & Burchell, S. A. (1990). Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals: A continuing peer review problem. JAMA, 263 (10), 1353–1354.Google Scholar
Evanschitzky, H., & Armstrong, J. S. (2013). Research with in-built replication: comment and further suggestions for replication research. Journal of Business Research, 66 (9), 1406–1408.Google Scholar
Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., et al. (2007). Replication research’s disturbing trend, Journal of Business Research, 60 (4), 411–415.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L. (2013). The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: managing scientific evidence in the age of science. University of California Davis Law Review, 46, 893–930.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4 e5738.Google Scholar
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS, 109 (42), 17028–17033.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (4), 290–309.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10 (2), 163–182.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., Rieken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (2015). The Quotable Feynman, ed. Feynman, M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fidler, F., & Wilcox, J. (2018). Reproducibility of Scientific Results. In Zalta, Edward N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/scientific-reproducibility/Google Scholar
Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: Observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience, 8 (6), 1–20.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The fallacy of beneficial ignorance: A test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World Development, 84, 176–189.Google Scholar
Francis, B. (1986). The grievance industry: The Human Rights Commission presiding over Australia’s fastest-growth sector. Quadrant, January/February, 102–104.Google Scholar
Franco, M., Orduñez, P., Caballero, B., et al. (2007). Impact of energy intake, physical activity, and population-wide weight loss on cardiovascular disease and diabetes mortality in Cuba, 1980–2005. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166 (12), 1374–1380.Google Scholar
Franklin, B. (1743). A proposal for promoting useful knowledge. Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-02-02-0092 [last update: 2016-03-28]). Source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 2, January 1, 1735, through December 31, 1744, ed. Labaree, L. W.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961, pp. 378–383.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (4), 25–42.Google Scholar
Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methodology, 21, 291–313.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution: Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic failure. Public Choice, 116, 205–223.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. (2010). Happiness: A Revolution in Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. (2018). Economics of Happiness. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics, from Essays in Positive Economics, reprinted in D. M. Hausman, ed., The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–178.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1981) [1994]. Correspondence: National Science Foundation grants for economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1), 199–200.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1991). Alternative approaches to analyzing economic data. American Economic Review, 81 (1), Appendix 48–49.Google Scholar
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.Google Scholar
Gal, D. (2006). A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Making, 1 (1), 23–32.Google Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2018a). The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (3), 497–516.Google Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2018b). Loss aversion, intellectual inertia, and a call for a more contrarian science: A reply to Simonson & Kivetz and Higgins & Liberman. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (3), 533–539.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1872). Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer. Fortnightly Review, LXVIII August 1, 125–135.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1874). English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1), 165–179.Google Scholar
Gao, J., & Zhou, T. (2017). Stamp out fake peer review. Nature, 546, 33.Google Scholar
Garvey, W. D., Lin, N., & Nelson, C. E. (1970). Communication in the physical and the social sciences. Science, 170 (3963), 1166–1173.Google Scholar
Gelles, D. (2018). James Dyson: “The public wants to buy strange things.” New York Times, December 5.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and bias.” European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83–115.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 361–383.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2018a). Statistical rituals: The replication delusion and how we got there. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (2), 198–218.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2018b). The bias bias in behavioral economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 5 (3–4), 303–336.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (2000). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York, NY: Oxford.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Czerlinski, J., & Martignon, L. (1999). In J. Shanteau, B. Mellers, , & D. A. Schum, , eds., Decision Science and Technology. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Vitouch, O. (2004). The null ritual: What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask. In D. Kapli, , ed., The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 391–408.Google Scholar
Goodstein, L. D., & Brazis, K. L. (1970). Psychology of scientist: XXX. Credibility of psychologists: An empirical study. Psychological Reports, 27 (3), 835–838.Google Scholar
Gordon, G., & Marquis, S. (1966). Freedom, visibility of consequences, and scientific innovation. American Journal of Sociology, 72 (2), 195–202.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1970). Evolutionary paleontology and the science of form. Earth-Science Reviews, 6, 77–119.Google Scholar
Green, K. C. (2002). Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: A comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement. International Journal of Forecasting, 18, 321–344.Google Scholar
Green, K. C. (2005). Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence. International Journal of Forecasting, 21, 463–472.Google Scholar
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007a). The value of expertise for forecasting decisions in conflicts. Interfaces, 37 (3), 287–299.Google Scholar
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007b). Structured analogies for forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 365–376.Google Scholar
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2008). Uncertainty, the precautionary principle, and climate change. Available at www.researchgate.net/publication/348663804_Uncertainty_the_Precautionary_Principle_and_Climate_ChangeGoogle Scholar
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Evidence on the effects of mandatory disclaimers in advertising. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31 (2), 325–325.Google Scholar
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2015). Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1678–1685.Google Scholar
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., et al. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis, Psychological Assessment, 12 (1), 19–30.Google Scholar
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., et al. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal, 336, 924–926.Google Scholar
Hair, K., Macleod, M. R., Sena, E. S., & The IICARus Collaboration (2018). A randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).Google Scholar
Hales, B. M., & Pronovost, P. J. (2006). The checklist – a tool for error management and performance improvement. Journal of Critical Care, 21, 231–235.Google Scholar
Hangarter, R. P. (2000). Darwin and His Research on Plant Motion. Plants-In-Motion, Indiana University website.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859), 1243–1248. DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2003). Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: A case for structure. Science Commnication, 24 (3), 366–379.Google Scholar
Hauer, E. (2004). The harm done by tests of statistical significance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36 (3), 495–500.Google Scholar
Hauer, E. (2019). On the relationship between road safety research and the practice of road design and operation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 128, 114–131.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. von (1974). Prize lecture: The pretence of knowledge. NobelPrize.org, Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 11, 1974.Google Scholar
Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., et al. (2009). A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England Journal of Medicine, 360 (5), 491–499.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: revising the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18 (1), 59–92.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., & Liberman, N. (2018). The loss of loss aversion: Paying attention to reference points. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (3), 523–532.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1967). The principle of the hiding hand. The Public Interest, 6 (Winter), 1–23.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (2012). When simple is hard to accept. In Todd, P. M. & Gigerenzer, G., eds., & ABC Research Group, Evolution and Cognition. Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–79.Google Scholar
Hollingworth, H. L. (1913). Advertising and Selling: Principles of Appeal and Response. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Google Scholar
Holub, H. W., Tappeiner, G., & Eberharter, V. (1991). The iron law of important articles. Southern Economic Journal, 58, 317–328.Google Scholar
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33 (6), 987–1015.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. (2016). Corrupt Research: The Case for Reconceptualizing Empirical Management and Social Science. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D. E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 35 (2), 153–164.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R., Vetter, D. E., & Little, E. L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (3), 243–254.Google Scholar
Idaho Statesman (1901). Doing one’s best. Idaho Daily Statesman, May 6, p. 4, col. 3, Boise Idaho. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/12/14/genius-ratio/#note-5018-8Google Scholar
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (5), 496–503. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612448792.Google Scholar
Infectious Diseases Society of America (2009). Grinding to a halt: The effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49 (1), 328–335.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005a). Why most published findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8): e124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005b). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA, 294, 218–228Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2014). Is your most cited work your best? Nature, 514, 561–562.Google Scholar
Iqbal, S. A., Wallach, J. D., Khoury, M. J., et al. (2016). Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLOS Biology, 14(1). DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.Google Scholar
Jacquart, P., & Armstrong, J. S. (2013). Are top executives paid enough? An evidence-based review. Interfaces, 43 (6), 580–589.Google Scholar
Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112, 241–254.Google Scholar
Jauch, L. R., & Wall, J. L. (1989). What they do when they get your manuscript: A survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1), 157–173.Google Scholar
Jefferson, T. (1779). 82. A bill for establishing religious freedom, 18 June, 1779. Founders Online, National Archives, accessed June 3, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082.Google Scholar
Johansen, M., & Thomsen, S. F. (2016). Guidelines for reporting medical research: A critical appraisal. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2016, 1–7.Google Scholar
John, L. K., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5), 524–532.Google Scholar
Kabat, G. C. (2008). Hyping Health Risks. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–292.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681–706.Google Scholar
Karpoff, J. M. (2001). Private versus public initiative in Arctic exploration: The effects of incentives and organizational structure. Journal of Political Economy, 107 (4), 38–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kealey, T. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kendall, P. C., & Ford, J. D. (1979). Reasons for clinical research: Characteristics of contributors and their contributions to the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 (1), 99–105.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.Google Scholar
King, D. W., McDonald, D. D., & Roderer, N. K. (1981). Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use and Economics. New York, NY: Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56 (1), 28–55.Google Scholar
Koning, A. J., Franses, P. H., Hibon, M., & Stekler, H. O. (2005). The M3 competition: Statistical tests of the results. International Journal of Forecasting, 21 (3), 397–409.Google Scholar
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 299, 349–356.Google Scholar
Kuenen, P. H. (1958). Experiments in Geology. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 23, 1–28.Google Scholar
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75 (1), 23–55.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kupfersmid, J., & Wonderly, D. M. (1994). An Author’s Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102 (1), 194–203.Google Scholar
Laframboise, D. (2020a). Cancel culture hits medical journals. BigPicNews.com, January 27.Google Scholar
Laframboise, D. (2020b). Here’s who pressured the medical journal. BigPicNews.com, January 29.Google Scholar
Langbert, M., Quain, A. J., & Klein, D. B. (2016). Faculty voter registration in economics, history, journalism, law, and psychology. Econ Journal Watch, 13 (3), 422–451.Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1979). Goal setting – a motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2), 68–80.Google Scholar
Lau, R. D. (1994). An analysis of the accuracy of “trial heat” polls during the 1992 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58 (1), 2–20.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. (1997). Individual statements of core journalistic values. In C. M. Firestone, , ed., The 1997 Catto Report on Journalism and Society. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149–188.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. (1925). Arrowsmith. Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Lindsay, J. A., Boghossian, P., & Pluckrose, H. (2018). Academic grievance studies and the corruption of scholarship. Areo, October 2.Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1978). The Scientific Publication System in Social Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lock, S., & Smith, J. (1986). Peer review at work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 17 (4), 303–316.Google Scholar
Lock, S., & Smith, J. (1990). What do peer reviewers do? JAMA, 263 (10), 1341–1343.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). Does prospect theory add or subtract from our understanding of goal directed motivation? In Sone, D. L. & Dulebohn, J. H., eds., The Only Constant in HRM Today Is Change. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., Schattke, K. (2019). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Time for expansion and clarification. Motivation Science, 5 (4), 277–290.Google Scholar
Lott, J. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lott, M. (2014). Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish. FoxNews.com, March 01.Google Scholar
Lovato, N., & Lack, L. (2010). The effects of napping on cognitive functioning. Progress in Brain Research, 185, 155–166.Google Scholar
Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports, 3 (3146), 1–5.Google Scholar
MacGregor, D. G. (2001). Decomposition for judgmental forecasting and estimation. In Armstrong, J. S., ed., Principles of Forecasting. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
MacKay, C. (1841). Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N., & Ziliak, S. T. (1996). The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (March), 97–114.Google Scholar
McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects, American Psychologist, 33 (3) 284–290.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D. (2000). Is it safe to assume that software is accurate? International Journal of Forecasting, 16, 349–357.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D. (2007). Got replicability? The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Archive. Econ Journal Watch, 4 (3), 326–337.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. G. (2008). Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Canadian Journal of Economics, 41, 1406–1420.Google Scholar
McShane, B. B., & Gal, D. (2015). Blinding us to the obvious? The effect of statistical training on the evaluation of evidence. Management Science, 62 (6), 1707–1718.Google Scholar
McShane, B. B., & Gal, D. (2017). Statistical significance and the dichotomism of evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112 (519), 885–895.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1976). Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (2), 161–175.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J., & DeMonbreun, B. G. (1977). Psychology of the scientist: An analysis of problem-solving bias. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (3), 229–255 (with commentaries).Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J., & Kimper, T.P. (1976). From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists. In M. Mahoney, , ed., Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills. New Your, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F., & Hoffman, L. R. (1960). Quality of first and second solutions in group problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44 (4), 278–283.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 70 (5), 863–873.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773–776.Google Scholar
Marquis, M. J., Warren, E. S., & Arnkoff, D. (2009). Michael J. Mahoney: A retrospective. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 19 (4), 402–418.Google Scholar
Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42 (5), 1005–1014.Google Scholar
Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1997). This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Medoff, M. H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70 (2), 425–434.Google Scholar
Medvedev, Z. A. (1969). The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko. New York, NY: Columbia.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67 (4), 371–378.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Miller, D. W. Jr. (2007). The government grant system: Inhibitor of truth and innovation? Journal of Information Ethics, Spring, 59–69.Google Scholar
Miller, H. I. (1996). When politics drives science: Gore, and US Biotechnology Policy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13 (2), 96–112.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2014). The Marshmallow Test: Why Self-Control Is the Engine of Success. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. I. (1972). The myth of objectivity, or why science needs a new psychology of science, Management Science, 18, B613–B618.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. I., & Mason, R. O. (1974). On evaluating the scientific contribution of the Apollo Moon Missions via information theory: A study of the scientist-scientist relationship. Management Science, 20 (12), 1501–1513.Google Scholar
Mixon, D. (1972). Instead of deception. Journal for The Theory of Social Behaviour, 2(2), 145–178.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. British Medical Journal, 340:c869. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c869.Google Scholar
Munafo, M. R., Nosek, B.A., Bishop, D. V., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behavior: Perspective, 1 (0021), January 10.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (2016). By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission. New York: Crown Forum.Google Scholar
Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E. Jr., & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox Lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48 (7), 630–635.Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, & Commonwealth of Australia (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated 2018). Canberra, ACT: National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2002). Access to Research Data in the 21st Century: An Ongoing Dialogue among Interested Parties: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at https://doi.org/10.17226/10302Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (1953). The Third Annual Report of the National Science Foundation: Year Ending June 30, 1953. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (2019). Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. February 25, NSF 19-1, OMB Control Number 3145-0058. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306. Available at www.jstor.org/stable/1827448Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1675). Letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke. February 5. Available at https://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/objects/9792, January 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1726). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, 3rd ed. London: W. & J. Innys, Royal Society.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1729). The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Translated from 3rd ed. into English by Motte, Andrew. London: Benjamin Motte.Google Scholar
Nijhawan, L. P., Janodia, M. D., Muddukrishna, B. S., et al. (2013). Informed consent: issues and challenges. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 4(3), 134–140.Google Scholar
Nobel Media, AB (2005). Nobel Prize in Physiology of Medicine 2005: B. J. Marshall and J. R. Warren. NobelPrize.org, 3 October. Available at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication., Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. J., & Robertson, E. F. (2004). The Royal Society. MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, February. Available at https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Societies/RS/.Google Scholar
OECD (2003). The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publications Service.Google Scholar
OED Online (2018). “scientific method, n.” Oxford University Press, July 2018. Available at www.oed.com/view/Entry/383323.Google Scholar
Oehler, J. H. (1976). Experimental studies in Precambrian paleontology: Structural and chemical changes in blue-green algae during simulated fossilization in synthetic chert. GSA Bulletin, 87 (1), 117–129.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (2018). Office of Management and Budget Historical Tables. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.Google Scholar
Ofir, C., & Simonson, I. (2001). In search of negative customer feedback: The effect of expecting to evaluate on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 170–182.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), 209–249.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30 (1), 1–43.Google Scholar
O’Leary, C. J., Willis, F. N., & Tomich, E. (1970). Conformity under deceptive and non-deceptive techniques. The Sociological Quarterly, 11 (1), 87–93.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251), 1–8.Google Scholar
Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 40 (4), 1142–1152.Google Scholar
ORSA Committee on Professional Standards (1971). Guidelines for the practice of operations research. Operations Research, 19, 1123–1258.Google Scholar
Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Reasoning in economics and psychology: Why social context matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 53 (4), 700–710.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1945). Notes on nationalism. Polemic, No 1. Available at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part30.Google Scholar
Ostro, S. J. (1993). Planetary radar astronomy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65 (4), 1235–1279.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, S. C., & Smithy, S. K. (1990). Monitoring scholarly journal publication in political science: The role of the APSR. PS: Political Science & Politics, 647–656.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1958). CP 7: Science and Philosophy. In Burks, A. W., ed., Collected Papers, EPUB, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (2), 187–195.Google Scholar
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G. J., Schiffer, B. C., et al. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLIFE, 27725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725Google Scholar
PLoS ONE (2016a). Submission Guidelines. Available at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc- style-and-format.Google Scholar
PLoS ONE (2016b). Criteria for publication. Available at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publicationGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Post, F. (1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165 (1), 22–34,Google Scholar
Prasad, V., Vandross, A., Toomey, C., et al. (2013). A decade of reversal: An analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88, 790–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.012Google Scholar
Rasmussen, D. (2017). The gospel according to Michael Porter. Institutional Investor, November 8. Available at www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b15jm11km848qm/the-gospel-according-to-michael-porterGoogle Scholar
Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, L. N., Rotfeld, H. J., & Wimmer, R. D. (1982). How researchers respond to replication attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 216–218.Google Scholar
Rich, B. R., & Janos, L. (1996). Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed. New York, NY: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Ridd v. James Cook University (2019). BRG 1148 of 2017.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (2020). How Innovation Works. London: 4th Estate.Google Scholar
Ring, K., Wallston, K., & Corey, M. (1970). Mode of debriefing as a factor affecting subjective reaction to a Milgram-type obedience experiment: An ethical inquiry. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1 (1), 67–88.Google Scholar
Routh, C. H. F. (1849). On the causes of the endemic puerperal fever of Vienna. Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, 32, 27–40.Google Scholar
Royal Society (2019). History of the Royal Society. The Royal Society internet site. Available at https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P., Murray, H. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (1987). Personality characteristics associated high research productivity. In Jackson, D. N. & Rushton, J. P., eds., Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 129–148.Google Scholar
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (2), 190–207.Google Scholar
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 409–425.Google Scholar
Schluter, D. (1994). Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Science, 266 (5186), 798–801.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 115–129.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (2017). Beyond questionable research methods: The role of omitted relevant research in the credibility of research. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 5 (1), 32–41.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (2018). A theory of European Anti-Semitism. Downloaded January 30, 2019, from ResearchGate. Available at www.researchgate.net/publication/329487711_A_Theory_of_European_Anti-SemitismGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 100 years of research findings. ResearchGate Working Paper, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18843.26400.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13 (2), 90–100.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. E. (2015). The Censor’s Hand: The Misregulation of Human Subject Research. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences. 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schrag, Z. M. (2014). You Can’t Ask That. Washington Monthly, September/October.Google Scholar
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., et al. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 507–514. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., for the CONSORT Group (2010). CONSORT Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. PLOS Medicine, 7 (3), e1000251.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., et al. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.Google Scholar
Shih, Y., Huang, R. H. & Chiang, H. (2012). Background music: Effects on attention performance. Work, 42, 573–578.Google Scholar
Shulman, S. (2008). The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander Graham Bell’s Secret. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2013). Self-awareness without awareness? Implicit self-focused attention and behavioral self-regulation. Self and Identity, 12, 114–127.Google Scholar
Simkin, M. V., & Roychowdhury, V. P. (2005). Stochastic modeling of citation slips. Scientometrics, 62, 367–384.Google Scholar
Simon, J. L. (1996). The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, J. L. (2002). A Life Against the Grain. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Simon, R. J., Bakanic, V., & McPhail, C. (1986). Who complains to journal editors and what happens? Sociological Inquiry, 56 (2), 259–271.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U. (2014). Citing prospect theory. Available at http://datacolada.org/15Google Scholar
Simonson, I., & Kivetz, R. (2018). Bringing (contingent) loss aversion down to earth – A comment on Gal & Rucker’s rejection of “losses loom larger than gains.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (3), 517–522.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3 (4), 544–551.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1962). An experimental study of competitive market behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 70 (2), 111–137.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1964). Effect of market organization on competitive equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78 (2), 181–201.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1965). Experimental auction markets and the Walrasian hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 73 (4), 387–393.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1991). Papers in Experimental Economics (Collected Works). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1991). Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology. Journal of Political Economy, 99 (4), 877–897.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2002). Method in experiment: Rhetoric and reality. Experimental Economics, 5, 91–110.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. The American Economic Review, 93 (3), 465–508.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2005). Behavioral economics research and the foundations of economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34, 135–150.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2013). Adam Smith: From propriety and Sentiments to property and Wealth. Forum for Social Economics, 42 (4), 283–297.Google Scholar
Smucker, M. R. (2008). Michael J. Mahoney (1946–2006). American Psychologist, 63 (1), 53–54.Google Scholar
Soyer, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2012). The illusion of predictability: How regression statistics misled experts. International Journal of Forecasting, 28, 695–711.Google Scholar
Spencer, R. W., Christy, J. R., & Braswell, W. D. (2017). UAH Version 6 global satellite temperature products: methodology and results. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 53 (1), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sponsel, A. (2002). Constructing a “Revolution in Science”: The campaign to promote a favourable reception for the 1919 solar eclipse experiments. The British Journal for the History of Science, 35 (4), 439–467.Google Scholar
Sprat, T. (1722). The History of the Royal Society of London, For The Improving of Natural Knowledge, 3rd ed. Samuel Chapman: London, England. Available at https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u5dJAAAAcAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Thomas+Sprat+%22History+of+the+Royal+Society+of+1667%22&ots=anb5aA5GDm&sig=1gSVSsVqp6lnLvdImBrCe8T-Jes&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Sprat%20%22History%20of%20the%20Royal%20Society%20of%201667%22&f=falseGoogle Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. (2006). The Production of Knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32 (1), 29–55.Google Scholar
Stewart, W. W., & Feder, N. (1987). The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature, 325 (January 15), 207–214.Google Scholar
Straumsheim, C. (2017). The shrinking mega-journal. Inside Higher Ed, January 5, available at www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/05/open-access-mega-journal-plos-one-continues-shrink.Google Scholar
Strong, P. E. (2017). Wargaming the Atlantic War: Captain Gilbert Roberts and the Wrens of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit. Validity and Utility of Wargaming, December 10th, 2017, Paper for MORS Wargaming Special Meeting October 2017 – Working Group 2.Google Scholar
Styer, P., McMillan, N., Gao, F., et al. (1995). Effect of outdoor airborne particulate matter on daily death counts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103 (5), 490–497.Google Scholar
Survey Research Center (1976). Research involving human subjects, 2 October 1976, box 11, meeting #23, tab 3(a). National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, archival collection, Bioethics Research Library Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (3), 461–487.Google Scholar
Sveikauskas, L. (2007). R&D and productivity growth: a review of the literature. BLS Working Papers, Working Paper 408.Google Scholar
Szilard, L. (1961 ). The Voice of the Dolphins and Other Short Stories. New York, NY: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72 (2), 271–324.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, S. (2018). Karl Popper. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Zalta, Edward N., ed. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/Google Scholar
Trotter, W. (1941). The Collected Papers of Wilfred Trotter, F. R. S. London: Oxford University Press. Available at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/znsqw543/items?canvas=8Google Scholar
Tschoegl, A. E. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Review of Philip E. Tetlock, Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? International Journal of Forecasting, 23 (2), 339–342.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, J. E. (1834). Oaths; Their Origin, Nature, and History. London: J. W. Parker.Google Scholar
Warren, E. S. (2007). Michael J. Mahoney (1946-2006): A life celebration. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35 (1), 105–107.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12 (3), 129–140.Google Scholar
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70 (2), 129–133.Google Scholar
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., et al. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20 (3), 470–477.Google Scholar
Weisberg, D. S., Taylor, J. C. V., & Hopkins, E. J. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations, Judgment and Decision Making, 10 (5), 429–441.Google Scholar
Went, F. W. (1949). The plants of Krakatoa. Scientific American, 181 (3), 52–55.Google Scholar
Westfall, R. (1973). Newton and the fudge factor. Science, 179 (4075), 751–758.Google Scholar
White, B. L. (2002). Classical Socratic Logic Provides the Foundation for the Scientific Search for Truth. Oakland, CA: Strategic Technology Institute:Google Scholar
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., et al. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61 (7), 726–728.Google Scholar
Williams, L. P. (2019). Michael Faraday. Encyclopaedia Britannica, February 21. Available at www.britannica.com/biography/Michael-Faraday.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. K., Purdon, S. E., & Wallston, K. A. (1988). Compliance to health recommendations: A theoretical overview of message framing, Health Education Research, 3 (2), 161–171.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (2), 101–112.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. D. (1978). Peer review and publication: Presidential Address before the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 61, 1697–1701.Google Scholar
Winston, C. (2007), Government Failure versus Market Failure. Washington, DC, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. (2002). Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wright, M., & Armstrong, J. S. (2008). Verification of citations: Faulty towers of knowledge? Interfaces, 38, 125–139.Google Scholar
Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566, Feb. 13, 378–382.Google Scholar
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Nature, 316 (5827), 18 May, 1036–1039.Google Scholar
Yankauer, A. (1985). Peering at peer review. CBE Views, 8(2), 7–10.Google Scholar
Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA, 263 (10), 1338–1340.Google Scholar
Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLOS Medicine, 5 (10), e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.Google Scholar
Young, S. S., & Karr, A. (2011). Deming, data and observational studies: a process out of control and needing fixing. Significance, September, 116–120.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor, close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 413–422.Google Scholar
Ziliak, S. T. (2011). Matrixx v. Siracusano and Student v. Fisher, Statistical significance on trial. Significance, 8 (3), 131–134.Google Scholar
Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Zimmer, R. J., & Isaacs, E. D. (2014). Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression. uchicago.edu. Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago. Unpublished manuscript. Available at https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdfGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia
  • Book: The Scientific Method
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009092265.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia
  • Book: The Scientific Method
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009092265.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia
  • Book: The Scientific Method
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009092265.015
Available formats
×