Strengthening the Practice of Exercise and Sport-Science Research.

Exercise and sport sciences continue to grow as a collective set of disciplines investigating a broad array of basic and applied research questions. Despite the progress, there is room for improvement. A number of problems pertaining to reliability and validity of research practices hinder advancement and the potential impact of the field. These problems include inadequate validation of surrogate outcomes, too few longitudinal and replication studies, limited reporting of null or trivial results, and insufficient scientific transparency. The purpose of this review is to discuss these problems as they pertain to exercise and sport sciences based on their treatment in other disciplines, namely psychology and medicine, and to propose a number of solutions and recommendations.

[1]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Detecting and avoiding likely false‐positive findings – a practical guide , 2017, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[2]  Adam Maszczyk,et al.  A systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task , 2017, PloS one.

[3]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Making sense of replications , 2017, eLife.

[4]  B. Schoenfeld,et al.  Pre- versus post-exercise protein intake has similar effects on muscular adaptations , 2017, PeerJ.

[5]  K. Button,et al.  Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review , 2016, BMC psychology.

[6]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  How open science helps researchers succeed , 2016, eLife.

[7]  David T. Martin,et al.  Coaching cues in amateur boxing: An analysis of ringside feedback provided between rounds of competition , 2016 .

[8]  Susann Fiedler,et al.  Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency , 2016, PLoS biology.

[9]  P. Furley,et al.  Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes , 2016 .

[10]  I. Halperin,et al.  The mind–muscle connection in resistance training: friend or foe? , 2016, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[11]  A. Ivarsson,et al.  What counts as “evidence” in evidence-based practice? Searching for some fire behind all the smoke , 2016 .

[12]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[13]  Peter J Beek,et al.  Human Movement Science adopts Registered Reports for hypothesis-driven research. , 2015, Human movement science.

[14]  W. Vanpaemel,et al.  Are We Wasting a Good Crisis? The Availability of Psychological Research Data after the Storm , 2015 .

[15]  David T. Martin,et al.  Threats to internal validity in exercise science: a review of overlooked confounding variables. , 2015, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[16]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[17]  Emma B. Saxon.  Beyond bar charts , 2015, BMC Biology.

[18]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time , 2015, PloS one.

[19]  A. Stenling,et al.  Things we still haven't learned (so far). , 2015, Journal of sport & exercise psychology.

[20]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[21]  R. Callister,et al.  Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Linear and Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength , 2015, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[22]  V. Garovic,et al.  Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm , 2015, PLoS biology.

[23]  C. Ugrinowitsch,et al.  A Review of Resistance Training-Induced Changes in Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis and Their Contribution to Hypertrophy , 2015, Sports Medicine.

[24]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer , 2014, Science.

[25]  S. Muthukumaraswamy,et al.  Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond , 2014 .

[26]  Natalie Matosin,et al.  Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture , 2014, Disease Models & Mechanisms.

[27]  D. Simons.  The Value of Direct Replication , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[28]  W. Stroebe,et al.  The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[29]  Receptive to replication , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[30]  B. Schoenfeld.  Postexercise Hypertrophic Adaptations: A Reexamination of the Hormone Hypothesis and Its Applicability to Resistance Training Program Design , 2013, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[31]  G. Wulf.  Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years , 2013 .

[32]  T. Fleming,et al.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  D. Lakens,et al.  Rewarding Replications , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[34]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[35]  H. Pashler,et al.  Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[36]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[37]  John Kiely,et al.  Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven? , 2012, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[38]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Scientific Utopia , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[39]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication , 2012, ArXiv.

[40]  T. Raastad,et al.  Strength and hypertrophy with resistance training: chasing a hormonal ghost , 2012, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[41]  A. Hunter,et al.  Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. , 2012, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[42]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[43]  J. Porter,et al.  Focus of Attention and Verbal Instructions: Strategies of Elite Track and Field Coaches and Athletes , 2010 .

[44]  D. Fanelli.  “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[45]  S. Schmidt.  Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences , 2009 .

[46]  D. Fanelli.  How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data , 2009, PloS one.

[47]  P. McCullagh,et al.  But what do the numbers really tell us? Arbitrary metrics and effect size reporting in sport psychology research. , 2007, Journal of sport & exercise psychology.

[48]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Factors That Can Affect the External Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2006, PLoS clinical trials.

[49]  J. Aronson.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. , 2005, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[50]  S. Ball,et al.  A Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Programs with Equated Volume and Intensity for Strength , 2002, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[51]  C. Bouchard,et al.  Individual differences in response to regular physical activity. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[52]  Christiane,et al.  WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects , 2001, Journal of postgraduate medicine.

[53]  N. Kerr.  HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 1998, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[54]  T. Pincus,et al.  Why randomized controlled clinical trials do not depict accurately long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: some explanations and suggestions for future studies. , 1997, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[55]  G. Tucker,et al.  Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation , 1991 .

[56]  H L Greene,et al.  Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[57]  Randall K. Jamieson,et al.  Registered Reports. , 2019, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[58]  D. Fanelli.  Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[59]  S. Marshall,et al.  Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[60]  J. Brooks.  Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[61]  Thomas R Fleming,et al.  Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. , 2005, Health affairs.