Quiz: Enhancing Scientific Self-Correction — 18 questions

Detailed questions and answers

1. What does the myth of self-correcting science claim about false or flawed findings?

They are harmless unless fraud is involved
They are automatically corrected by the research system over time
They disappear once enough replications are published
They are corrected only when journals issue immediate retractions

They are automatically corrected by the research system over time

Explanation

The myth is the belief that scientific progress will fix false findings on its own. The material emphasizes that correction is not automatic and requires deliberate action.

2. In the reported loss-of-confidence survey, what proportion of respondents had lost confidence in at least one finding?

28%
56%
74%
44%

44%

Explanation

The survey found that 44% of respondents lost confidence in at least one finding. The other percentages refer to reasons for the loss or responsibility for errors.

3. What is a retraction in scientific publishing?

A journal notice that withdraws a published record because its validity is affected
A private communication between authors and reviewers
A minor correction that leaves the article fully citable
A method for increasing citation counts after revision

A journal notice that withdraws a published record because its validity is affected

Explanation

A retraction withdraws a published record when problems affect its validity. It is more serious than a simple correction.

4. Which outcome can occur when authors self-initiate corrections after an honest error?

Their reputation always declines permanently
The error is treated as misconduct
Their paper becomes immune to further scrutiny
Their reputation may remain neutral or improve

Their reputation may remain neutral or improve

Explanation

The material notes that self-initiated corrections after honest errors can have neutral or even improved reputation outcomes. Honest error is not the same as misconduct.

5. Which example best fits a careless error?

A typo or copy/paste mistake in data entry
A theory built on weak training in study design
A flawed choice of measurement scale
A decision to use a weak sample size

A typo or copy/paste mistake in data entry

Explanation

Careless errors come from inattention or oversight, such as typos, copy/paste mistakes, and coding errors. The other options describe negligent design or analysis problems.

6. What type of error is best illustrated by poor design or weak analysis choices due to inadequate training?

Randomization error
Retraction error
Negligent error
Careless error

Negligent error

Explanation

Negligent errors are linked to incompetence or poor training and include weak design and analysis choices. Careless errors are slips, not competence problems.

7. What is the main purpose of error detection techniques in scientific reporting?

To replace peer review entirely
To identify inconsistencies, anomalies, or signs of mistakes
To prove that every published result is false
To increase the statistical power of a study

To identify inconsistencies, anomalies, or signs of mistakes

Explanation

Error detection methods are used to spot inconsistencies, anomalies, and possible mistakes in reports and results. They do not by themselves prove an entire study is wrong.

8. Why can Statcheck miss some problems in statistical reporting?

It requires ingredients for recalculation that may be missing or incompatible
It only works on qualitative interviews
It needs access to raw data in every case
It can only detect fraud, not honest mistakes

It requires ingredients for recalculation that may be missing or incompatible

Explanation

Statcheck can miss issues when results are reported in incompatible ways or when necessary ingredients for recalculation are missing. It works from reported summary information, not from every raw dataset.

9. What kind of mismatch does Statcheck primarily flag?

A difference between reported statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-values that do not recalculate consistently
A difference between raw data and interview notes
A disagreement between authors about interpretation
A mismatch between sample size and journal impact factor

A difference between reported statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-values that do not recalculate consistently

Explanation

Statcheck detects reporting inconsistencies when the statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-values do not jointly make sense. It is a math-consistency checker, not an interpretation tool.

10. What is optimistic rounding in statistical reporting?

Rounding all values to the nearest whole number for simplicity
Using exact p-values only when they are non-significant
Reporting borderline p-values in a way that shifts them toward significance
Changing sample sizes after analysis

Reporting borderline p-values in a way that shifts them toward significance

Explanation

Optimistic rounding can turn borderline values such as p ≥ 0.055 into a reported p < 0.05. This can make a result appear more significant than it really is.

11. What does the GRIM test primarily check in reported research results?

Whether the experimenters were unaware of group assignments
Whether the reported p-value was rounded to three decimal places
Whether the random assignment produced equal group sizes
Whether a reported mean is compatible with the data’s discrete granularity

Whether a reported mean is compatible with the data’s discrete granularity

Explanation

GRIM checks whether a reported mean could actually arise from the underlying discrete response values. It is a granularity plausibility check, not a randomization or blinding check.

12. In a randomized trial, what is the purpose of a randomisation check?

To recalculate p-values from the reported test statistics
To confirm that the analysts could not see the group labels
To verify that reported means match the possible response granularity
To test whether baseline distributions look plausible under random assignment

To test whether baseline distributions look plausible under random assignment

Explanation

A randomisation check asks whether the observed baseline values are plausible if participants were assigned at random. It does not examine granularity or statistical-reporting consistency.

13. Which practice best reflects a questionable measurement practice that can weaken construct validity?

Creating items ad hoc without clear validity evidence
Using a larger sample size to increase precision
Reporting all analyses in a transparent appendix
Blinding the data collector to hypotheses

Creating items ad hoc without clear validity evidence

Explanation

Ad hoc item creation is specifically named as a questionable measurement practice because it can weaken construct validity. The other options are generally good research practices.

14. Why can low statistical power make a study’s findings less reliable?

It eliminates the need for careful measurement
It mainly detects only large effects, which can exaggerate or miss true effects
It guarantees that all real effects will be significant
It makes rounding errors less likely in reported statistics

It mainly detects only large effects, which can exaggerate or miss true effects

Explanation

Low power means the study can reliably detect only larger effects, so results are more vulnerable to exaggeration, instability, or error. It does not guarantee significance or improve measurement quality.

15. Which of the following is an example of a data anomaly that can trigger suspicion?

Multiple panels showing implausibly close patterns across groups
A clearly stated hypothesis before data collection
A figure that includes labels and legends
A sample size that is larger than in a previous study

Multiple panels showing implausibly close patterns across groups

Explanation

Implausibly similar patterns across panels or groups are a classic anomaly because they may violate expectations from independent data. The other options are not anomalies by themselves.

16. What happened in the example where integer adjustments were made to F values?

The studies were improved through better randomization and blinded assessment
The means became compatible with the data’s granularity
The effect sizes were reduced because of a higher sample size
The results were altered to look statistically significant and the papers were later retracted

The results were altered to look statistically significant and the papers were later retracted

Explanation

The example describes adding or subtracting integers to F values to make results appear significant, which later led to retractions. It is an instance of self-correction after a data anomaly was uncovered.

17. Which set of actions best matches the global solutions emphasized for improving scientific reliability?

Avoiding data visualization to prevent subjective interpretation
Relying only on journal prestige to prevent mistakes
Checks and balances, data sharing, pre-prints, open peer review, and full audit procedures
Increasing the number of positive results and reducing scrutiny

Checks and balances, data sharing, pre-prints, open peer review, and full audit procedures

Explanation

The global solutions listed include checks and balances, data sharing, pre-prints, open peer review, and full audit procedures. These are intended to make correction and scrutiny easier, not harder.

18. What is one practical good practice for data analysis highlighted as helpful for spotting problems?

Plotting the data to surface issues
Hiding raw data until publication
Skipping review to speed up the workflow
Using only summary statistics without inspection

Plotting the data to surface issues

Explanation

Plotting the data is specifically named as a practical way to detect problems during analysis. Visual inspection can reveal anomalies that summary statistics may hide.

Review with flashcards

Memorize the answers with 18 flashcards on Enhancing Scientific Self-Correction.

Error-prone humans — role?

Cause of mistakes in science

Self-correction myth — belief?

Science automatically corrects flawed findings

Retraction — purpose?

Withdraws invalid or problematic publication

See flashcards →

Study the revision sheet

Read the complete revision sheet on Enhancing Scientific Self-Correction.

See revision sheet →

Similar courses

Create your own quizzes

Import your course and AI generates quizzes with corrections in 30 seconds.

Quiz generator