These are the sources and citations used to research psyc 1a essay. This bibliography was generated on Cite This For Me on
In-text: (Aschwanden and Koerth, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Aschwanden, C. and Koerth, M., 2016. How Two Grad Students Uncovered An Apparent Fraud — And A Way To Change Opinions On Transgender Rights. FiveThirtyEight, [online] Available at: <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-two-grad-students-uncovered-michael-lacour-fraud-and-a-way-to-change-opinions-on-transgender-rights/> [Accessed 9 November 2021].
In-text: (Belluz, 2015)
Your Bibliography: Belluz, J., 2015. How the biggest fraud in political science nearly got missed. [online] Vox. Available at: <https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8720975/science-fraud-replication> [Accessed 9 November 2021].
In-text: (Bhattacharjee, 2013)
Your Bibliography: Bhattacharjee, Y., 2013. The Mind of a Con Man. The New York Times, [online] Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
Depending on factors specific to each case, these misbehaviours lie somewhere on a continuum between scientific fraud, bias, and simple carelessness...
In-text: (Fanelli, 2009)
Your Bibliography: Fanelli, D., 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, [online] 4(5), p.e5738. Available at: <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738#pone.0005738-Steneck1> [Accessed 3 November 2021].
In-text: (Gelman and Carlin, 2014)
Your Bibliography: Gelman, A. and Carlin, J., 2014. Beyond Power Calculations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, [online] 9(6), pp.641-651. Available at: <http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/retropower_final.pdf> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
In-text: (Head et al., 2015)
Your Bibliography: Head, M., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. and Jennions, M., 2015. The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science. PLOS Biology, [online] 13(3), p.e1002106. Available at: <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106> [Accessed 5 November 2021].
In-text: (Kerr, 1998)
Your Bibliography: Kerr, N., 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), pp.196-217.
over 60 articles were retracted from journals
In-text: (Klein, 2014)
Your Bibliography: Klein, S., 2014. What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology?. p.326.
In-text: (Palus, 2015)
Your Bibliography: Palus, S., 2015. Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions. [online] Retraction Watch. Available at: <https://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58-retractions/> [Accessed 5 November 2021].
In-text: (Resnick, 2018)
Your Bibliography: Resnick, B., 2018. The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud.. [online] Vox. Available at: <https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
In-text: (Smith, 2000)
Your Bibliography: Smith, R., 2000. What is research misconduct?. The COPE Report 2000: the Committee on Publication Ethics., [online] pp.7-12. Available at: <https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/COPE2000pdfcomplete.pdf> [Accessed 7 November 2021].
In-text: (Verfaellie and McGwin, 2011)
Your Bibliography: Verfaellie, M. and McGwin, J., 2011. The case of Diederik Stapel. American Psychological Association, [online] Available at: <https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
10,587 students joined last month!