This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Following the online publication of
four errors were identified. In accordance with the journal’s Permanency of Content Policy (https://jbdgm.psychopen.eu/index.php/JBDGM/policies#permanencyofcontent), the original online version of the article remains unaltered. The present correction note serves to address and rectify these errors.
Since the mistakes were identified prior to the article’s inclusion in the printed journal volume, the correction has been implemented in the print version, ensuring that the error does not appear therein.
Inconsistency Regarding Hypothesis 2.2b
While the Methods section correctly stated that Hypothesis 2.2b (increasing prevalence of effect sizes) was accepted (pp. 22 and 24), the Discussion section contained an erroneous statement. The original wording read: "The prevalence of effect sizes and CIs—the corner-stones of the new statistics—did not change over time and H2.2a and b were rejected." The corrected version states: "The prevalence of CIs showed no increase over time (H2.2a rejected), but the prevalence of effect sizes showed a slight increase, and H2.2b was accepted."
Incorrect Figure 12
An error was identified in Figure 12 on page 21 of the original manuscript. The figure incorrectly reproduced Figure 10, which depicts conflict of interest statements, rather than presenting the prevalence of confidence intervals as indicated in the figure title.
The correct figure is:
Figure 12
The Prevalence of CIs Among the n = 59 Quantitative Research Reports
Incorrect Descriptions of Regression Lines in Figure Notes
The notes accompanying several figures contained erroneous explanations of the regression lines’ meaning. The table below specifies the affected figures, highlights the incorrect passages (underlined), and provides the corrected versions (underlined).
Table C1
List of Incorrect Descriptions of Regression Lines in Figure Notes and Their Corrections
| Figure Number and Displayed Variable (Page Number) | Incorrect Information (Underlined) | Corrected Information (Underlined) |
|---|---|---|
| Figure 8: Open Data (p. 17) | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with available material (available upon request or can be downloaded/accessed) and features a slope of 12.3%. | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with available data (available upon request or can be downloaded/accessed) and features a slope of 12.3%. |
| Figure 10: Conflicts of Interest (p. 19) | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with funding statements and features a slope of 13.6%. | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with conflict of interest statements and features a slope of 13.6%. |
| Figure 13: Effect Size (p. 22) | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with funding statements and features a slope of 2.7%. | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers reporting effect sizes and features a slope of 2.7%. |
| Figure 14: Sample Size Determination (p. 23) | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with funding statements and features a slope of 5.5%. | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with statements regarding the sample size determination and features a slope of 5.5%. |
| Figure 15: Data Exclusion (p. 24) | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with funding statements and features a slope of 7.7%. | The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with statements regarding data exclusion and features a slope of 7.7%. |
Incorrect Reference to Research Question in Section Comparison to Similar Studies
The second sentence of the Section Comparison to Similar Studies (p. 29) contained an erroneous reference to the research question number. The original wording read: "RQ2 named six studies as primary comparison points." The corrected version states: "RQ3 named six studies as primary comparison points."