Statistical Forensics


Statistical Forensics at Work

Statistical forensics refer to statistical techniques that can assess the credibility or likely replicability of scientific studies.

Research 2000: Problems in plain sight

Statistical Forensics Launches a Polling Donnybrook

Benos, D. (2006). Ethics: detecting misconduct. Nature.

Bes-Rastrollo, M., Schulze, M. B., Ruiz-Canela, M., & Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A. (2013). Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 10(12), e1001578.

Bolton, R. J., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Statistical fraud detection: A review. Statistical science, 17(3), 235-255.

Bierman, D. J., Spottiswoode, J. P., & Bijl, A. (2016).Testing for questionable research practices in a meta-analysis: An example from experimental parapsychology. PloS one, 11(5), e0153049.

Broome, M. E., Pryor, E., Habermann, B., Pulley, L., & Kincaid, H. (2005). The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire—Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research, 12(4), 263-280.

Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered Reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex [Editorial]. Cortex, 49(3), 609-610.

Chan, A. W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Jama, 291(20), 2457-2465.

Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Clarke, M., Gamble, C., Higgins, J. P., Sterne, J. A., … & Kirkham, J. J. (2014). Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med, 11(6), e1001666.

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033.

Giardino, J. (2014). Caught by the numbers. Fraud Magazine.

Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual review of psychology, 67, 693-711.

Gupta, A. (2013). Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: a concern. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(2), 144-147.

Hannink, G., Gooszen, H. G., & Rovers, M. M. (2013). Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions. Annals of surgery, 257(5), 818-823.

Inzlicht, M. (2016). Check yourself again. Toronto Laboratory For Social Neuroscience.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological science, 23(5), 524-532.

Kirkham, J. J., Dwan, K. M., Altman, D. G., Gamble, C., Dodd, S., Smyth, R., & Williamson, P. R. (2010). The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. Bmj, 340, c365.

Klimek, P., Yegorov, Y., Hanel, R., & Thurner, S. (2012). Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16469-16473.

Kupferschmidt, K. (2018). Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him. Science Magazine.

Mathieu, S., Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., & Ravaud, P. (2009). Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Jama, 302(9), 977-984.

Mebane, W. R. Evidence Against Fraudulent Votes Being Decisive in the Bolivia 2019 Election. University of Michigan personal homepage.

Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2010). Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Science and engineering ethics, 16(2), 251-261.

Nevitt, S. J., Marson, A. G., Davie, B., Reynolds, S., Williams, L., & Smith, C. T. (2017). Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review. bmj, 357, j1390.

Pryor, E. R., Habermann, B., & Broome, M. E. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 365-369.

Reid, E. K., Tejani, A. M., Huan, L. N., Egan, G., O’Sullivan, C., Mayhew, A. D., & Kabir, M. (2015). Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups. Systematic reviews, 4(1), 85.

Roseman, M., Milette, K., Bero, L. A., Coyne, J. C., Lexchin, J., Turner, E. H., & Thombs, B. D. (2011). Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.Jama, 305(10), 1008-1017.

Roseman, M., Turner, E. H., Lexchin, J., Coyne, J. C., Bero, L. A., & Thombs, B. D. (2012). Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. Bmj, 345, e5155.

Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External validity of randomised controlled trials:“to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. The Lancet, 365(9453), 82-93.

Saini, P., Loke, Y. K., Gamble, C., Altman, D. G., Williamson, P. R., & Kirkham, J. J. (2014). Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. bmj, 349, g6501.

Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Jama, 273(5), 408-412.

Shea, C. (2012). The Data Vigilante. The Atlantic.

Should you put your trust in medical research? (Chicago Tribune, June 8, 2015)

Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670-688.

Thomas, J.R., Jr. (2015). Scientific misconduct: red flags. TheScientist.

Thompson, N. (2016). SIFT: a new tool for statistical detection of test fraud. Assessment Systems.

Tie, R. (2011). Zeroing in on fraud. Fraud Magazine.

Woo, S. E., O’Boyle, E. H., & Spector, P. E. (2017). Best practices in developing, conducting, and evaluating inductive research.

Yong, E. (2012). A failed replication draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor. Discover magazine blog.

Yong, E. (2012). The data detective. Nature News & Comment.