“The Generalizability of Online Experiments Conducted During The COVID-19 Pandemic” – CORRIGENDUM

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2022.23

K. Peyton, G. Huber, A. Coppock

引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the course of running computational reproducibility checks for Peyton, Huber and Coppock (2021), the Yale ISPS Data Archive identified mistakes concerning the number of statistically significant differences reported for comparisons made between pre-COVID experiments and our replications. These mistakes arose because of errors in the code used to adjust p-values for multiple comparisons, leading to inconsistent reporting of the number of significant differences before and after adjustment. Correcting these mistakes affects Figures 2-3 and the first paragraph on p. 6 in the published article. All point estimates, standard errors, and substantive conclusions are unchanged. In Figure 1, we present the original version of Figure 2 from Peyton, Huber and Coppock (2021) in the top panel (1a) and the correction in the bottom panel (1b). Figure 2 likewise shows the original version of Figure 3 in the top panel (2a) and the correction in the bottom panel (2b). The text on p. 6 of Peyton, Huber and Coppock (2021) reads:

查看原文本刊更多论文

“COVID-19大流行期间进行的在线实验的普遍性”-勘误表

在对Peyton、Huber和Coppock（2021）进行计算再现性检查的过程中，耶鲁大学ISPS数据档案馆发现了关于新冠肺炎前实验和我们的复制之间的比较所报告的统计显著差异数量的错误。出现这些错误是因为用于调整多次比较的p值的代码中存在错误，导致调整前后显著差异数量的报告不一致。纠正这些错误会影响图2-3和已发表文章第6页的第一段。所有的点估计、标准误差和实质性结论都没有变化。在图1中，我们在顶部面板（1a）中展示了Peyton、Huber和Coppock（2021）对图2的原始版本，并在底部面板（1b）中进行了更正。图2同样在顶部面板（2a）中显示了图3的原始版本，在底部面板（2b）中显示校正。Peyton、Huber和Coppock（2021）第6页的文本如下：

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.