Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

(2016) Anders Eklund et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Distributions ofp-values smaller than .05 in psychology: what is going on?

(2016) Chris H.J. Hartgerink et al.   PeerJ

Promoting an open research culture

(2015) B. A. Nosek et al.   SCIENCE

Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis

(2014) John P A Ioannidis et al.   LANCET

Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science

(2014) Coosje L. S. Veldkamp et al.   PLoS One

How to Make More Published Research True

(2014) John P. A. Ioannidis   PLOS MEDICINE

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

(2013) Katherine S. Button et al.   NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE

Does parametric fMRI analysis with SPM yield valid results?—An empirical study of 1484 rest datasets

(2012) Anders Eklund et al.   NEUROIMAGE

The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature

(2012) Joshua Carp   NEUROIMAGE

Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals

(2011) Konstantinos CM Siontis et al.   INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping

(2009) Nikolaus Kriegeskorte et al.   NATURE NEUROSCIENCE

Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated

(2008) John P. A. Ioannidis   EPIDEMIOLOGY

The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations

(2007) Deena Skolnick Weisberg et al.   JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE