Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:22:59.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tie my hands loosely

Pre-analysis plans in political science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2021

Daniel Rubenson Open the ORCID record for Daniel Rubenson [Opens in a new window]
Daniel Rubenson*
Affiliation:
Ryerson University
*
Correspondence: Daniel Rubenson, Ryerson University, Toronto, M5B 2K3, Canada. Email: rubenson@ryerson.ca
Get access

Abstract

An abstract 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
Special Issue: Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Fall 2021 , pp. 142 - 151
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

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

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., Wilson, R., Boudreau, C., Bush, S., Jerit, J., Rubenson, D., Sinclair, B., Settle, J., Woon, J., & Zechmeister, E. (2018). The value of preregistration for open and credible science: An initiative from the journal of experimental political science. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(3), 165–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., & Humpreys, M. (2019a). Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs. American Political Science Review, 113(3), 838–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., Humpreys, M., & Fultz, N. (2019b). DeclareDesign. [Software package for R]. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from http://declaredesign.orgGoogle Scholar
Blair, G., Coppock, A., & Humphreys, M. (2021). Research design: Declaration, diagnosis, redesign. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. (2020). Transparency and reproducibility: Conceptualizing the problem. In Elman, C., Gerring, J., & Mahoney, J. (Eds.), The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science (pp. 129–164). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, A., Ksiazkiewwicz, A., & Gothreau, C. (2021). Political taste: Exploring how perception of bitter substances may reveal risk tolerance and political preferences. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.20.Google Scholar
Gerber, A., & Malhotra, N. (2008a). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(3), 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008b). Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Malhotra, N., Dowling, C. M., & Doherty, D. (2010). Publication bias in two political behavior literatures. American Politics Research, 38(4), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisbourg, E., & Feitosa, F. (2021). Does music affect citizens’ evaluations of candidates? Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.22.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M., De la Sierra, R. S., & Van der Windt, P. (2013). Fishing, commitment, and communication: A proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Political Analysis, 21(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. (2020). Pre-registration and results-free review in observational and qualitative research. In Elman, C., Gerring, J., & Mahoney, J. (Eds.), The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science (pp. 221–264). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. M., & Irvin, V. L. (2015). Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0132382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewen, P. J., & Rubenson, D. (2021). Value-added and transparent (VAT) experiments. Working paper, https://bit.ly/3iEmtlF.Google Scholar
Mansell, J., Mock, S., Rhea, C., Tecza, A., & Peirder, J. (2021). Measuring attitudes as a complex system: Structured thinking and support for the Canadian carbon tax. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.16.Google Scholar
Munafo, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofosu, G. K., & Posner, D. N. (2021). Pre-analysis plans: An early stocktaking. Perspectives on Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721000931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploger, G., Dunaway, J., Fournier, P., & Soroka, S. (2021). The psychophysiological correlates of cognitive dissonance. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.15.Google Scholar
Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology, 21, 308–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slough, T., Rubenson, D., Levy, R., Alpizar Rodriguez, F., Bernedo del Carpio, M., Buntaine, M. T., Christensen, D., Cooperman, A., Eisenbarth, S., Ferraro, P. J., Graham, L., Hartman, A., Kopas, J., McLarty, S., Rigterink, A. S., Samii, C., Seim, B., Urpelainen, J., & Zhang, B. (2021a). Supplementary information for “Adoption of Community Monitoring Improves Common Pool Resource Management Across Contexts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29), e2015367118.Google Scholar
Slough, T., Rubenson, D., Levy, R., Alpizar Rodriguez, F., Bernedo del Carpio, M., Buntaine, M. T., Christensen, D., Cooperman, A., Eisenbarth, S., Ferraro, P. J., Graham, L., Hartman, A. C., Kopas, J., McLarty, S., Rigterink, A. S., Samii, C., Seim, B., Urpelainen, J., & Zhang, B. (2021b). Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29), e2015367118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar