| Title |
Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Data, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sdata.2016.82 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Warren Tierney, Martin Schweinsberg, Jennifer Jordan, Deanna M. Kennedy, Israr Qureshi, S. Amy Sommer, Nico Thornley, Nikhil Madan, Michelangelo Vianello, Eli Awtrey, Luke Lei Zhu, Daniel Diermeier, Justin E. Heinze, Malavika Srinivasan, David Tannenbaum, Eliza Bivolaru, Jason Dana, Clintin P. Davis-Stober, Christilene du Plessis, Quentin F. Gronau, Andrew C. Hafenbrack, Eko Yi Liao, Alexander Ly, Maarten Marsman, Toshio Murase, Michael Schaerer, Christina M. Tworek, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Lynn Wong, Tabitha Anderson, Christopher W. Bauman, Wendy L. Bedwell, Victoria Brescoll, Andrew Canavan, Jesse J. Chandler, Erik Cheries, Sapna Cheryan, Felix Cheung, Andrei Cimpian, Mark A. Clark, Diana Cordon, Fiery Cushman, Peter H. Ditto, Alice Amell, Sarah E. Frick, Monica Gamez-Djokic, Rebecca Hofstein Grady, Jesse Graham, Jun Gu, Adam Hahn, Brittany E. Hanson, Nicole J. Hartwich, Kristie Hein, Yoel Inbar, Lily Jiang, Tehlyr Kellogg, Nicole Legate, Timo P. Luoma, Heidi Maibeucher, Peter Meindl, Jennifer Miles, Alexandra Mislin, Daniel C. Molden, Matt Motyl, George Newman, Hoai Huong Ngo, Harvey Packham, P. Scott Ramsay, Jennifer L. Ray, Aaron M. Sackett, Anne-Laure Sellier, Tatiana Sokolova, Walter Sowden, Daniel Storage, Xiaomin Sun, Jay J. Van Bavel, Anthony N. Washburn, Cong Wei, Erik Wetter, Carlos T. Wilson, Sophie-Charlotte Darroux, Eric Luis Uhlmann |
| Abstract |
We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 32% |
| Germany | 3 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 48% |
| Scientists | 14 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 49 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 38% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,338,476
of 25,204,906 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Data
#565
of 3,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,930
of 327,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Data
#7
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,204,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.