The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power

The authors evaluate the quality of research reported in major journals in social-personality psychology by ranking those journals with respect to their N-pact Factors (NF)—the statistical power of the empirical studies they publish to detect typical effect sizes. Power is a particularly important attribute for evaluating research quality because, relative to studies that have low power, studies that have high power are more likely to (a) to provide accurate estimates of effects, (b) to produce literatures with low false positive rates, and (c) to lead to replicable findings. The authors show that the average sample size in social-personality research is 104 and that the power to detect the typical effect size in the field is approximately 50%. Moreover, they show that there is considerable variation among journals in sample sizes and power of the studies they publish, with some journals consistently publishing higher power studies than others. The authors hope that these rankings will be of use to authors who are choosing where to submit their best work, provide hiring and promotion committees with a superior way of quantifying journal quality, and encourage competition among journals to improve their NF rankings.

[1]  F. Schmidt Statistical Significance Testing and Cumulative Knowledge in Psychology: Implications for Training of Researchers , 1996 .

[2]  P. Meehl Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox , 1967, Philosophy of Science.

[3]  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.

[4]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  When small effects are impressive , 1992 .

[5]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  Daniele Fanelli,et al.  Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[7]  Robert P. Abelson,et al.  A Variance Explanation Paradox: When a Little is a Lot , 1985 .

[8]  H. Pashler,et al.  Two Failures to Replicate High-Performance-Goal Priming Effects , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  B. Newell,et al.  Priming Intelligent Behavior: An Elusive Phenomenon , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  D. Mook,et al.  In defense of external invalidity. , 1983 .

[11]  S. Maxwell The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: causes, consequences, and remedies. , 2004, Psychological methods.

[12]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology: Special Issue of Social Psychology , 2013 .

[13]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? , 2011, Scientometrics.

[14]  H. Pashler,et al.  Priming of Social Distance? Failure to Replicate Effects on Social and Food Judgments , 2012, PloS one.

[15]  Karl J. Friston Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers , 2012, NeuroImage.

[16]  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.

[17]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[18]  C. F. Bond,et al.  One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described , 2003 .

[19]  M. Barnett-Cowan,et al.  Reproducibility Project: Psychology , 2012 .

[20]  L. Bornmann,et al.  A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants , 2010, PloS one.

[21]  Dave Bartram,et al.  Choosing the best method for local validity estimation: relative accuracy of meta-analysis versus a local study versus Bayes-analysis. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Do Studies of Statistical Power Have an Effect on the Power of Studies? , 2004 .

[23]  Robert P. Abelson,et al.  A Variance Explanation Paradox : When a Little is a Lot , 1985 .

[24]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  On the Post Hoc Power in Testing Mean Differences , 2005 .

[25]  Harry T. Reis,et al.  Publication Trends in JPSP: A Three-Decade Review , 1992 .

[26]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[27]  Jessica L. Tracy,et al.  The practice of psychological science: searching for Cronbach's two streams in social-personality psychology. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Richard E. Lucas,et al.  On the association between loneliness and bathing habits: nine replications of Bargh and Shalev (2012) Study 1. , 2015, Emotion.

[29]  R. Krueger,et al.  Handbook of research methods in personality psychology , 2007 .

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

[31]  G. Cumming Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis , 2011 .

[32]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  THINGS I HAVE LEARNED (SO FAR) , 1990 .

[33]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Life after P-Hacking , 2013 .

[34]  D. Heisey,et al.  The Abuse of Power , 2001 .

[35]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[36]  Etienne P LeBel,et al.  Fearing the Future of Empirical Psychology: Bem's (2011) Evidence of Psi as a Case Study of Deficiencies in Modal Research Practice , 2011, Review of General Psychology.

[37]  P. Meehl Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. , 1978 .

[38]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  A Note on Percent Variance Explained as A Measure of the Importance of Effects , 1979 .

[39]  U. Schimmack The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[40]  W. Rakowski,et al.  Effect of cost sharing on screening mammography in Medicare health plans. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  D. Funder,et al.  Behavior as a function of the situation. , 1983 .

[42]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[43]  Michael J. Marks,et al.  The null hypothesis significance-testing debate and its implications for personality research. , 2007 .

[44]  Reginald B. Adams,et al.  Investigating Variation in Replicability: A “Many Labs” Replication Project , 2014 .

[45]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[46]  E. Diener,et al.  Personality research: components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[47]  Björn Brembs,et al.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[48]  Gregory Francis,et al.  Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[49]  J. Rossi,et al.  Statistical power of psychological research: what have we gained in 20 years? , 1990, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.