The ADNI project (2004–ongoing) aims at characterizing change in cognitive functions and brain structures with age, with a particular emphasis on Alzheimer's disease and neuroimaging.
From the website,
The overall goal of this huge project is to define the rate of
progress of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease, to
develop improved ...
The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) provides 8000+ data sets. Topics include aging, criminal justice, education, or health.
As an example, here is my favorite, the summary of the "500 Family Study". This study includes questionnaire, cortisol, and experience sampling data:
The 500 Family Study was designed to obtain ...
The PROMIS project (funded by NIH) built upon a large scale US epidemiological study to assess patient-reported chronic disease outcomes. Data were collected on general population and multiple disease populations in different centers.
From the website,
Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a
system of highly reliable, ...
It's not a journal article, but it's a project, called Reproducibility Project.
They are re-doing psychological studies to estimate the reproducibility of a sample of studies. They try to stay as close as possible on the original study (they e-mail the author(s) for the exact stimuli etc.).
Here's the main site and here's the link to their spreadsheet.
The Open Science Framework will do some of what you ask for. Additionally, it will allow you to preregister your hypotheses to properly distinguish confirmatory and exploratory research.
Features (quoted from the homepage).
Document and archive studies
Share and find materials, scripts, data
Detail individual contributions
One finding from the Reproducibility Project was the following:
Van Bavel et al wrote that
Inbar (2) notes that the reproducibility rate of social psychology (28%) is lower than cognitive psychology (53%).
In general, one might expect that subdisciplines with the following features to have greater reproducibility issues:
particularly interested in ...
After asking my question, I did a quick search and found one promising journal that will commence in 2014 called Scientific Data.
Scientific Data is a new open-access, online-only publication for
descriptions of scientifically valuable datasets. It introduces a new
type of content called the Data Descriptor, which will combine
It is not specifically for data from the cognitive sciences but figshare might be worth looking at:
figshare allows researchers to publish all of their research outputs in seconds in an easily citable, sharable and discoverable manner. All file formats can be published, including videos and datasets that are often demoted to the supplemental materials ...
The IQSS Dataverse Network looks good.
From the website:
Access the world's largest collection of social science research data
here by searching across or browsing through one of the virtual data
archives (called "dataverses") listed below. You may also create a
dataverse of your own, backed up in perpetuity by the Henry A. Murray
Archive, which ...
I like your question. But I have to point out one thing - if you were to use documenting tools for all those tasks that you mentioned, you wouldn't have that much time left for your research. Sharing is great, but it takes time to do it properly, even with great tools.
I tried quite a few tools for documenting research, with an idea to boost my productivity,...
The APA has a general tutorial on finding psychological tests with a range of tips.
PsychTESTS is a new product by the APA that aims to make it easier to find psychological tests. It is a subscription service. Thus, you would probably have to pay for it yourself or get it through a university or other body that subscribes to it
Read the ...
The whole point of these lies is to prevent participants from changing their answers because they want to please the researchers or convey their personal beliefs about a topic.
It is typical to inform participants about the true purpose at the end of the study if this is possible. Other times, studies use purposefully vague language in describing the ...
This question asks about Psychological journal that focuses on publishing interesting psychological datasets journals where you can publish psychological data.
Such journals rely on other organisations to provide repositories for the published datasets.
In particular, the journal Open Psychological Data has a page which lists several data repositories along ...
As far as I know, short answer is no - there is no gold standard for EEG files. But EEG is a time series (amplitude) from several channels. So the most common way to represent it is columns as electrodes and rows as points of time. I think almost all software is possible to read such structure as txt file. But EEG is not only time series. Usually it is ...
Figshare is one option for archiving assorted research artefacts. To quote the "about page":
figshare allows researchers to publish all of their research outputs
in seconds in an easily citable, sharable and discoverable manner. All
file formats can be published, including videos and datasets that are
often demoted to the supplemental materials ...
See this previous question about journals that specialise in publishing psychological datasets.
See the reproducible-research tag for some more specific examples.
PlosOne Psychology has recently increased its requirements to supply raw data. So recent psychological research in the journal is more likely to have data attached to the manuscript. I did a ...
The relevant concepts are set size and span. The set size is usually the amount of items to be remembered in a memory task, but technically only refers to the amount of information that must be held in (working) memory to complete the memory task at hand, while the span is the amount actually remembered. With this in mind, your topic can be stated as being ...
No provocative experiment needed. Some of the major taxonomies within personality psychology have well-validated measures for honesty, and have been used in massive samples that could already address this question. I would start by doing a search on Google Scholar for those measures and the types of success you mention. E.g.,
There is no official database I can find that collects the different effects proposed in psychology and track how they replicate. However, reputable psychology papers are published in professional journals and are re-examined all the time with meta-analyses and further research, also published in professional journals.
It's not exactly what you're after, but the Newcastle Cognition Lab has a data repository. It includes a number of learning curve datasets and other studies that measured response time to various simple cognitive tasks.
High standards are being proposed, but not taken up very quickly.
Psychology is currently undergoing a transition in methods between the traditional approach of hypothesizing after results are known (e.g., Bem, 1980) and new statistical and design methods that have fewer false positives, such as focusing on effect sizes and confidence intervals over ...
I have started to see a fair bit of discussion about reproducible meta-analysis.
Tim Churches seems to have a github repository with a few examples of meta-analyses in R.
See in particular the public health example:
Formatted Markdown output
'psychology' is too big for this in general. But lots of people do care a lot about replication and there have been some nice many-labs efforts to asses the state of replicability across the field. Klein, et al. (2014). was one attempt.
This study is taking the usual logic of inference about a population (in this case 'effects') from a small sample, so it ...
You talk about the challenge of the variability in EEG data formats --- While I am (unfortunately) not aware of a standard EEG data format, there are attempts to standardize the way that EEG data could be shared:
The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) tries to clarifying the structure of directories and meta data necessary when sharing neuro-imaging data. ...
The basis of your question
..particle physics doesn't suffer nearly as much from the reproducibility crisis because it has much higher standards than the social sciences
You said this in response to innisfree (2019)
The 'replication crisis' is that many effects in social sciences (and, although to a lesser extent, other scientific fields) couldn't be ...
Many individual papers report non-reproducible findings. I would advise you to look for review papers and meta-analysis studies to get the bigger picture. If not available, you can consider to set up a literature study yourself.
Nature puts it down neatly (emphasis mine):
Science moves forward by corroboration – when ...
You can simply use a questionnaire based measurement scale. I recommend the PANAS scale by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988), which has extensive support in literature. It is a twenty-item questionnaire, utilising 5-point likert scales, that consolidates into two scales: positive, and negative affect.
In recent research, two broad, general factors--...