Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice

Area of Science:

• Philosophy
• Psychology
• Research Methodology

Background:

• Replication crises in science highlight issues with common research practices.
• Reporting standards are crucial for addressing questionable research practices and irreproducible findings.
• Experimental Philosophy, as a developing field, must proactively adopt robust reporting standards.

Purpose of the Study:

• To comprehensively assess current statistical reporting and methodological disclosure practices in Experimental Philosophy.
• To identify areas where reporting standards in Experimental Philosophy can be improved to enhance research transparency and reproducibility.

Main Methods:

• Quantitative analysis of 134 articles published in 29 leading philosophy journals between 2013-2016.
• Focus on statistical reporting quality, including null hypothesis significance testing, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and statistical power.
• Assessment of methodological information disclosure.

Main Results:

• Null hypothesis significance testing is the predominant statistical method.
• Adoption of supplementary measures is partial: 53% reported effect sizes, 28% confidence intervals, 1% prospective power, and 5% observed power.
• No direct correlation found between reporting quality and citation impact.

Conclusions:

• Experimental Philosophy has partially adopted advanced statistical reporting practices.
• Recommendations are provided for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve statistical transparency and reproducibility.
• Enhancing reporting standards is essential for the integrity of experimental philosophy research.