I just checked if this retracted study with the implausibly large effect is an obvious outlier in a meta-analysis. No, it isn't
There is one with a much larger effect size
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
Fortunately, Matt Williams already flagged it.
pubpeer.com/publications...
Habit research has accumulated many tasks that supposedly tap into the same construct, yet their psychometric properties are rarely examined. Here, we assess their construct validity evidence and analyze their reliability to facilitate interpretation of previous studies and guide novel research ⬇️📝
How can we keep our trust on science where #ResearchIntegrity is challenged?
🔴Today at 15:00 → STOA's event on the Future of European Research hosted by @ivarsijabs.bsky.social, with @linagalvez.eu
Info & watch live: link.europa.eu/PKmMKF
Interview with Maura Hiney: tinyurl.com/3u53tpe9
As part of our commitment to the highest standards of evidence, Cochrane is strengthening how we identify and manages retracted publications associated with studies included in published or identified in ongoing Cochrane reviews.
Read more: www.cochrane.org/about-us/new...
#ResearchIntegrity
Retracted studies threaten the conclusions of meta analyses that include them.
“Where a retraction undermines confidence in the conclusions, a decision may be required on whether the systematic review itself should be retracted, in line with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics”
Now that's what I call a spicy opeing: Understanding mechanisms is not a research question.
This is a really important decision, as it incentivises review authors to do a proper trustworthiness assessment (eg using inspect.sr) and not include studies that are found to be lacking.
Upcoming STOA events, with programmes, registration and webstreaming links.
