On the public citation graph
Responsibility for Raw Data.
0 signed · 218 inferred · view as graph
Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.
Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the
claims that are yours.
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a
known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped
badge you can embed.
What points at this work
Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.334180openalex-extracted
The Skeptic's Handbook: Consumer Guidelines and a Critical Assessment of Business and Management Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3191openalex-snapshot
Disentangling knowledge production and data production
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010302openalex-snapshot
Experimenter bias and other possible biases in psychological research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1661openalex-snapshot
Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data: The role of meta‐analysis
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980010109openalex-snapshot
Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1388openalex-snapshot
A study of the determinants of psychologists' data sharing and open data badge adoption
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770080312openalex-snapshot
Going beyond the narrative summarization of research findings: The meta‐analysis approach
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919openalex-snapshot
Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401120openalex-snapshot
Factors affecting psychologists' adoption of an open data badge
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6633-8_20openalex-snapshot
Intervention Effectiveness Research in Adolescent Health Psychology: Methodological Issues and Strategies
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7015-4_14openalex-snapshot
Toward Ethical Guidelines for Social Science Research in Public Policy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13472-3_52openalex-snapshot
Data Sharing in Social Sciences: Case Study on Charles University
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64312-5_56openalex-snapshot
Promoting Open Science in Artificial Intelligence: An Interactive Tutorial on Licensing, Data, and Containers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136830openalex-snapshot
On ensuring the availability of evaluative data for secondary analysis
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/bf01073124openalex-snapshot
Justifications for the sharing of social science data.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90040-1openalex-snapshot
The problem of group differences in ability test scores in employment selection
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(85)90011-4openalex-snapshot
Documentation in evaluation research: Managerial and scientific requirements
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-531956-0.50005-6openalex-snapshot
WITHDRAWN: A Synthesis of 1043 Effects of Television on Social Behavior
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-543201-6.50005-3openalex-snapshot
A Synthesis of 1043 Effects of Television on Social Behavior
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.accop.2025.100001openalex-snapshot
Accounting Open — Shaping the future of accounting research: Less, better, more interesting
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104005openalex-snapshot
The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.002openalex-snapshot
Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.007openalex-snapshot
Social scientists’ data sharing behaviors: Investigating the roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.03.001openalex-snapshot
Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors affecting psychologists’ intentions to adopt an open data badge: An empirical analysis
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.006openalex-snapshot
Psychological support for the concept of psycholegal competencies
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7373(70)80002-5openalex-snapshot
The computer as a psychotherapist
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00386-7openalex-snapshot
Discovery and communication of important marketing findings
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62624-2openalex-snapshot
Machines, Architecture, Intelligence, and Knowledge: Changing Conceptions of the Cognitive Psychologist's Data Source
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400259492openalex-snapshot
Political Statistics for the United States: Observations on Some Major Data Sources
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0098858800009035openalex-snapshot
Rethinking The Admissibility of Medical Treatises as Evidence
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011183openalex-snapshot
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011195openalex-snapshot
A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011201openalex-snapshot
Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011213openalex-snapshot
The fate of published articles, submitted again
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011225openalex-snapshot
On the failure to detect previously published research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011237openalex-snapshot
Peer review and theCurrent Anthropologyexperience
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011249openalex-snapshot
Computer-assisted referee selection as a means of reducing potential editorial bias
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011250openalex-snapshot
Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: High rejection rates and scarcity of space
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011262openalex-snapshot
Peer review and the structure of knowledge
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011274openalex-snapshot
Reforming peer review: From recycling to reflexivity
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011286openalex-snapshot
On peer review: “We have met the enemy and he is us”
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011298openalex-snapshot
Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011304openalex-snapshot
Criterion problems in journal review practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011316openalex-snapshot
Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011328openalex-snapshot
Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0001133xopenalex-snapshot
Theoretical implications of failure to detect prepublished submissions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011341openalex-snapshot
Deception in the study of the peer-review process
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011353openalex-snapshot
Review bias: Positive or negative, good or bad?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011365openalex-snapshot
The journal article review process as a game of chance
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011377openalex-snapshot
When will the editors start to edit?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011389openalex-snapshot
Cognitive relativism and peer-review bias
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011390openalex-snapshot
Optional published refereeing
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011407openalex-snapshot
Judging document content versus social functions of refereeing: Possible and impossible tasks
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011419openalex-snapshot
Scientific communication: So where do we go from here?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011420openalex-snapshot
The insufficiencies of methodological inadequacy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011432openalex-snapshot
Peer review in the physical sciences: An editor's view
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011444openalex-snapshot
Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011456openalex-snapshot
Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011468openalex-snapshot
Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0001147xopenalex-snapshot
Peer review: Prediction of the future or judgment of the past?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011481openalex-snapshot
Publication, politics, and scientific progress
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011493openalex-snapshot
Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0001150xopenalex-snapshot
Making the plausible implausible: A favorable review of Peters and Ceci's target article
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011511openalex-snapshot
When we practice to deceive: The ethics of a metascientific inquiry
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011523openalex-snapshot
Designing peer review for the subjective as well as the objective side of science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011535openalex-snapshot
Rejecting published work: It couldn't happen in physics! (or could it?)
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011547openalex-snapshot
Reliability, bias, or quality: What is the issue?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011559openalex-snapshot
What is the source of bias in peer review?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011560openalex-snapshot
Biases, decisions and auctorial rebuttal in the peer-review process
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011572openalex-snapshot
Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011584openalex-snapshot
Improving research on and policies for peer-review practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011596openalex-snapshot
2004: A scenario of peer review in the future
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011602openalex-snapshot
Reviewer reliability: Confusing random error with systematic error or bias
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011614openalex-snapshot
Reliability and bias in peer-review practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011626openalex-snapshot
Rejecting published work: Similar fate for fiction
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011638openalex-snapshot
Rejection, rebuttal, revision: Some flexible features of peer review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0001164xopenalex-snapshot
Anosmic peer review: A rose by another name is evidently not a rose
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011651openalex-snapshot
Referee report on an earlier draft of Peters and Ceci's target article
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011663openalex-snapshot
Responsibility in reviewing and research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011675openalex-snapshot
Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011687openalex-snapshot
Some procedural obscurities in Peters and Ceci's peer-review study
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011699openalex-snapshot
The quandary of manuscript reviewing
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011705openalex-snapshot
Research on peer-review practices: Problems of interpretation, application, and propriety
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011717openalex-snapshot
Experimenter and reviewer bias
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011729openalex-snapshot
Competency testing for reviewers and editors
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011730openalex-snapshot
Reliability and validity of peer review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011742openalex-snapshot
Bias, incompetence, or bad management?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011754openalex-snapshot
Peer-review research: Objections and obligations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054455openalex-snapshot
The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054467openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054479openalex-snapshot
The evolution of science and “principles of impossibility”
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054480openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology is science, but its findings are inconclusive
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054492openalex-snapshot
Where is the “anomaly” called psi?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054509openalex-snapshot
Psi and the unwilling suspension of belief
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054510openalex-snapshot
According to “physical irreversibility,” the “paranormal” is not de jure suppressed, but is de facto repressed
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054522openalex-snapshot
In what respect is psi anomalous?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054534openalex-snapshot
Believers, nonbelievers, and the parapsychology debate
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0005456xopenalex-snapshot
How to dismiss evidence without really trying
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054583openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology on the couch
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054595openalex-snapshot
Why parapsychology cannot become a science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054601openalex-snapshot
Observation versus theory in parapsychology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054613openalex-snapshot
Differentiating between the statistical and substantive significance of ESP phenomena: Delta, kappa, psi, phi, or it's not all Greek to me
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054625openalex-snapshot
Random generators, ganzfelds, analysis, and theory
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054637openalex-snapshot
Orthodoxy and excommunication in science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054649openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology as a search for the soul: Psi anomalies and dualist research programs
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054650openalex-snapshot
Anomalous phenomena and orthodox science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054674openalex-snapshot
Factual impossibility and concomitant variations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054686openalex-snapshot
Evidence of the paranormal: A skeptic's reactions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054698openalex-snapshot
The case of the underdetermined theory
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054704openalex-snapshot
Axioms in science, classical statistics, and parapsychological research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054728openalex-snapshot
Experimental evidence for paranormal phenomena
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0005473xopenalex-snapshot
“Please wait to be tolerated”: Distinguishing fact from fiction on both sides of a scientific controversy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054741openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology: The science of ostensible anomalies
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054753openalex-snapshot
Skepticism and psi: A personal view
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054765openalex-snapshot
Never say never again: Rapprochement may be nearer than you think!
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054777openalex-snapshot
Parapsychology's critics: A link with the past?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054789openalex-snapshot
Hypnosis, psi, and the psychology of anomalous experience
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054790openalex-snapshot
On rustles, wolf interpretations, and other wild speculations
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054807openalex-snapshot
When immovable objections meet irresistible evidence: A case of selective reporting
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054819openalex-snapshot
Are the conventional explanations of psi anomalies adequate?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054832openalex-snapshot
Some suggestions from sociology of science to advance the psi debate
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054844openalex-snapshot
Psi: Anomalous correlation or anomalous explanation?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054856openalex-snapshot
Are there any “communications anomalies”?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054868openalex-snapshot
Alcock's critique of Schmidt's experiments
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0005487xopenalex-snapshot
Psi: Repeatability, falsifiability, and science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054881openalex-snapshot
The status of parapsychology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054893openalex-snapshot
Is searching for a soul inherently unscientific?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0005490xopenalex-snapshot
The psi controversy as a crystallization of the conflict between the mechanistic and the transcendental worldviews
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054911openalex-snapshot
Anomaly versus artifact, or anomalous artifact?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054923openalex-snapshot
Psi, statistics, and society
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054935openalex-snapshot
Distance, ESP, and ideology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054959openalex-snapshot
Are scientists materialistic monists?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00054972openalex-snapshot
A to-do about dualism or a duel about data?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190520000057openalex-snapshot
Outliers in L2 Research in Applied Linguistics: A Synthesis and Data Re-Analysis
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.33.4.381openalex-snapshot
Secondary analysis: The case for data archives.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.38.4.414openalex-snapshot
Private archives and public needs.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.4.741openalex-snapshot
Reporting primary data in scientific articles: Technical solutions to a perennial problem.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.65.6.643openalex-snapshot
Validity generalization results for computer programmers.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.66.3.261openalex-snapshot
Validity generalization results for two job groups in the petroleum industry.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.73.4.665openalex-snapshot
Validity generalization and situational specificity: A second look at the 75% rule and Fisher's z transformation.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.3openalex-snapshot
Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.46.4.660openalex-snapshot
Experimental methods and outcome evaluation.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.36.10.1128openalex-snapshot
Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.726openalex-snapshot
The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529openalex-snapshot
Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.6.609openalex-snapshot
Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.373openalex-snapshot
Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0023535openalex-snapshot
Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0026719openalex-snapshot
Computers, privacy, and the national data center: The responsibility of social scientists.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0035667openalex-snapshot
Retention of raw data: A problem revisited.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1037/met0000365openalex-snapshot
The reproducibility of statistical results in psychological research: An investigation using unpublished raw data.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1989.10475596openalex-snapshot
Concepts of Relative Importance in Recent Scientific Literature
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1990.10475684openalex-snapshot
Estimating the Errors Remaining in a Data Set: Techniques for Quality Control
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1995.10476122openalex-snapshot
Computer Algebra Systems: Maple and Mathematica
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1972.11011345openalex-snapshot
Development, Dissemination, and Adoption
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1981.10477677openalex-snapshot
Statistics in Society: Problems Unsolved and Unformulated
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1396214openalex-snapshot
The poor availability of syntaxes of structural equation modeling
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/1177083x.2021.1922465openalex-snapshot
Understanding the data‐sharing debate in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand: a narrative review on the perspectives of funders, publishers/journals, researchers, participants and Māori collectives
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.482219openalex-snapshot
Can Structural Equation Models in Second Language Testing and Learning Research be Successfully Replicated?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197536537.003.0011openalex-snapshot
Preregistration, Data Sharing, and Other Salutary Behaviors
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547openalex-snapshot
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1108/eb028516openalex-snapshot
Share and Share Alike? A Review of Empirical Evidence Concerning Information Sharing Among Researchers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13231openalex-snapshot
Controlled outputs, full data: A privacy‐protecting infrastructure for MOOC data
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12045openalex-snapshot
How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01394.xopenalex-snapshot
Approaches to research in medical education
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00568.xopenalex-snapshot
ECONOMICS AS A HARD SCIENCE: REALISTIC GOAL OR WISHFUL THINKING?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb00441.xopenalex-snapshot
MODERATOR RESEARCH AND THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS1
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1979.tb02134.xopenalex-snapshot
FURTHER TESTS OF THE SCHMIDT‐HUNTER BAYESIAN VALIDITY GENERALIZATION PROCEDURE1
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02163.xopenalex-snapshot
THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY1
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb01453.xopenalex-snapshot
A WITHIN SETTING EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00557.xopenalex-snapshot
FURTHER WITHIN‐SETTING EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00162.xopenalex-snapshot
Validity generalization: Some critical remarks on the Schmidt‐Hunter procedure*
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-24-00548openalex-snapshot
Individual participant data meta-analysis tips and tricks: troubleshooting commonly encountered issues of contacting trialists for individual participant data
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/23328584251409658openalex-snapshot
Investigating Data Sharing Practices in Teaching Effectiveness Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917751886openalex-snapshot
Data Sharing in Psychology: A Survey on Barriers and Preconditions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_8openalex-snapshot
Error in Research and Assessment Data With an Erratum for Meyer (1993)
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0401_16openalex-snapshot
Reply to van der Ploeg, Vetter, and Kleijn
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1287/inte.13.4.20openalex-snapshot
The Ombudsman: Cheating in Management Science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026828openalex-snapshot
Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103360openalex-snapshot
Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199789openalex-snapshot
A funder-imposed data publication requirement seldom inspired data sharing
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252047openalex-snapshot
Data management and sharing: Practices and perceptions of psychology researchers
showing the first 200 of 218 · page through all 218
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity
Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers
publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free
and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.