Jelte Wicherts writes:
I thought you might be interested in reading this paper that is to appear this week in PLoS ONE.
In it we [Wicherts, Marjan Bakker, and Dylan Molenaar] show that the willingness to share data from published psychological research is associated both with “the strength of the evidence” (against H0) and the prevalence of errors in the reporting of p-values.
The issue of data archiving will likely be put on the agenda of granting bodies and the APA/APS because of what Diederik Stapel did.
I hate hate hate hate hate when people don’t share their data. In fact, that’s the subject of my very first column on ethics for Chance magazine. I have a story from 22 years ago, when I contacted some scientists and showed them how I could reanalyze their data more efficiently (based on a preliminary analysis of their published summary statistics). They seemed to feel threatened by the suggestion and refused to send me their raw data. (It was an animal experiment, so no issues with confidentiality etc., and it was a government lab, so it had nothing to do with trade secrets or proprietary data.)
P.S. Regular readers will not be surprised to find that I hate the pie charts, dislike the bar chart, and absolutely detest the tables in the above-linked article. It’s great work but I think the paper would’ve been improved through a more careful graphical presentation in which the authors thought a bit about their goals in presenting the numbers and their comparisons of interest.