@article{AsendorpfConnerDeFruytetal.2013,
  author    = {Asendorpf, Jens B. and Conner, Mark and De Fruyt, Filip and De Houwer, Jan and Denissen, Jaap J. A. and Fiedler, Klaus and Fiedler, Susann and Funder, David C. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Nosek, Brian A. and Perugini, Marco and Roberts, Brent W. and Schmitt, Manfred and vanAken, Marcel A. G. and Weber, Hannelore and Wicherts, Jelte M.},
  title     = {Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology},
  series = {European journal of personality},
  volume    = {27},
  journal   = {European journal of personality},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0890-2070},
  doi       = {10.1002/per.1919},
  pages     = {108 -- 119},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HornungNitezkiKraemer2018,
  author    = {Hornung, Jessica and Nitezki, Tina and Kraemer, Stephanie},
  title     = {Zieht die Schubladen auf! Ein Appell zur Ver{\"o}ffentlichung von Negativ-Ergebnissen in der tierbasierten Forschung},
  series = {Berliner und M{\"u}nchener Tier{\"a}rztliche Wochenschrift},
  volume    = {131},
  journal   = {Berliner und M{\"u}nchener Tier{\"a}rztliche Wochenschrift},
  number    = {7-8},
  publisher = {Schl{\"u}tersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH \& Co. KG.},
  address   = {Hannover},
  issn      = {0005-9366},
  doi       = {10.2376/0005-9366-17093},
  pages     = {279 -- 283},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {In der Humanmedizin stellt die sogenannte evidenzbasierte Medizin nach Einf{\"u}hrung des Begriffs durch D.L. Sackett (Sackett et al. 1996) und der Gr{\"u}ndung des Cochrane Instituts (1972) einen wichtigen Standard in der Aufbereitung und dem Transfer von Ergebnissen aus klinischen Studien in den {\"a}rztlichen Alltag dar. Ziel ist es, die Vermittlung von Erkenntnissen aus der Wissenschaft f{\"u}r die praktizierenden {\"A}rzte zu erleichtern. Dabei werden Studienergebnisse in Abh{\"a}ngigkeit von der jeweiligen Fragestellung mittels systematischer Literaturrecherche zusammengetragen und hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz bewertet, um so dem Arzt ein Instrument an die Hand zu geben, mit dem die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse im Hinblick auf eine konkrete klinische Situation abgewogen und angewendet werden k{\"o}nnen. In den letzten Jahren wurde allerdings vermehrt Kritik laut, dass der Ausgang vieler klinischer Studien in den {\"U}bersichtsarbeiten zu positiv dargestellt werde. Urs{\"a}chlich hierf{\"u}r ist der Aspekt des Publikationsbias, also die Beobachtung, dass Autoren wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse mit positivem Ausgang bevorzugt publizieren. {\"U}bertr{\"a}gt man diesen Sachverhalt auf die pr{\"a}klinische Forschung, die in weiten Teilen auf der Durchf{\"u}hrung tierexperimenteller Untersuchungen beruht, so widerspr{\"a}che das Zur{\"u}ckhalten negativer Ergebnisse in fataler Weise dem 3R-Konzept von Russel und Burch, da dadurch die Gefahr besteht, dass Forschungsvorhaben wiederholt durchgef{\"u}hrt werden.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{NiemeyerMuschPietrowsky2013,
  author    = {Niemeyer, Helen and Musch, Jochen and Pietrowsky, Reinhard},
  title     = {Publication Bias in meta-analyses of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression},
  series = {Journal of consulting and clinical psychology},
  volume    = {81},
  journal   = {Journal of consulting and clinical psychology},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0022-006X},
  doi       = {10.1037/a0031152},
  pages     = {58 -- 74},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether systematic reviews investigating psychotherapeutic interventions for depression are affected by publication bias. Only homogeneous data sets were included, as heterogeneous data sets can distort statistical tests of publication bias. Method: We applied Begg and Mazumdar's adjusted rank correlation test, Egger's regression analysis, and the trim and fill procedure to assess the presence and magnitude of publication bias in all homogeneous data sets of systematic reviews published up to September 2010. Results: Thirty-one data sets reported in 19 meta-analyses fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Significant bias was detected in 5 (16.13\%; rank correlation test) and 6 (19.35\%; Egger's regression analysis) of these data sets. Applying the trim and fill procedure to amend presumably missing studies rarely changed the assessment of the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, with 2 exceptions. In 1 data set psychotherapy was no longer found to be significantly more efficacious than pharmacotherapy in reducing dropout at posttreatment when publication bias was taken into account. In the 2nd data set, after correcting for publication bias, there was no longer evidence that depressed patients without comorbid personality disorder profited more from psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy than patients with comorbid personality disorder. Conclusions: The results suggest that taken together, psychotherapy research for depression is only marginally affected by the selective reporting of positive outcomes. With 2 notable exceptions, correcting for publication bias did not change the evaluation of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions.},
  language  = {en}
}