Replication Standards for Quantitative Social Science: Why Not Sociology? Export

@article{citeulike:3882821, abstract = {The credibility of quantitative social science benefits from policies that increase confidence that results reported by one researcher can be verified by others. Concerns about replicability have increased as the scale and sophistication of analyses increase the possible dependence of results on subtle analytic decisions and decrease the extent to which published articles contain full descriptions of methods. The author argues that sociology should adopt standards regarding replication that minimize its conceptualization as an ethical and individualistic matter and advocates for a policy in which authors use independent online archives to deposit the maximum possible information for replicating published results at the time of publication and are explicit about the conditions of availability for any necessary materials that are not provided. The author responds to several objections that might be raised to increasing the transparency of quantitative sociology in this way and offers a candidate replication policy for sociology. 10.1177/0049124107306659}, author = {Freese, Jeremy}, citeulike-article-id = {3882821}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124107306659}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/2/153?WT.mc_id=1092038ja&WT.mc_ev=click}, day = {1}, doi = {10.1177/0049124107306659}, journal = {Sociological Methods Research}, keywords = {methodology, sociology}, month = {November}, number = {2}, pages = {153--172}, posted-at = {2009-01-15 08:36:11}, priority = {2}, title = {Replication Standards for Quantitative Social Science: Why Not Sociology?}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124107306659}, volume = {36}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:3882821 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3882821 N2 - The credibility of quantitative social science benefits from policies that increase confidence that results reported by one researcher can be verified by others. Concerns about replicability have increased as the scale and sophistication of analyses increase the possible dependence of results on subtle analytic decisions and decrease the extent to which published articles contain full descriptions of methods. The author argues that sociology should adopt standards regarding replication that minimize its conceptualization as an ethical and individualistic matter and advocates for a policy in which authors use independent online archives to deposit the maximum possible information for replicating published results at the time of publication and are explicit about the conditions of availability for any necessary materials that are not provided. The author responds to several objections that might be raised to increasing the transparency of quantitative sociology in this way and offers a candidate replication policy for sociology. 10.1177/0049124107306659 IS - 2 JF - Sociological Methods Research EP - 172 TI - Replication Standards for Quantitative Social Science: Why Not Sociology? VL - 36 SP - 153 KW - methodology KW - sociology AU - Freese, Jeremy PY - 2007/11/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124107306659 ER -