Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology

Autores
Gould, Elliot; Fraser, Hannah S.; Parker, Timothy H.; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Griffith, Simon C.; Vesk, Peter A.; Fidler, Fiona; Hamilton, Daniel G.; Abbey Lee, Robin N.; Abbott, Jessica K.; Aguirre, Luis A.; Alcaraz, Carles; Aloni, Irith; Altschul, Drew; Arekar, Kunal; Atkins, Jeff W.; Atkinson, Joe; Baker, Christopher M.; Barrett, Meghan; Bell, Kristian; Bello, Suleiman Kehinde; Beltrán, Iván; Berauer, Bernd J.; Bertram, Michael Grant; Palacio, Facundo Xavier; Youngflesh, Casey; Zilio, Giacomo; Zimmer, Cédric; Zimmerman, Gregory Mark; Zitomer, Rachel A.
Año de publicación
2025
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.
Fil: Gould, Elliot. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Fraser, Hannah S.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Parker, Timothy H.. Whitman College; Estados Unidos
Fil: Nakagawa, Shinichi. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Griffith, Simon C.. Macquarie University; Australia
Fil: Vesk, Peter A.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Fidler, Fiona. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Hamilton, Daniel G.. Monash University; Australia
Fil: Abbey Lee, Robin N.. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland; Suecia
Fil: Abbott, Jessica K.. Lund University; Suecia
Fil: Aguirre, Luis A.. University of Massachusetts; Estados Unidos
Fil: Alcaraz, Carles. Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries; España
Fil: Aloni, Irith. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; Israel
Fil: Altschul, Drew. The University of Edinburgh; Reino Unido
Fil: Arekar, Kunal. Indian Institute of Science; India
Fil: Atkins, Jeff W.. United States Department Of Agriculture. Horticultural Research Laboratory;
Fil: Atkinson, Joe. University Aarhus; Dinamarca
Fil: Baker, Christopher M.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Barrett, Meghan. Purdue University; Estados Unidos. Indiana University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bell, Kristian. Deakin University; Australia
Fil: Bello, Suleiman Kehinde. King Abdulaziz University; Arabia Saudita
Fil: Beltrán, Iván. Macquarie University; Australia
Fil: Berauer, Bernd J.. University of Hohenheim; Alemania
Fil: Bertram, Michael Grant. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (slu);
Fil: Palacio, Facundo Xavier. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Ornitología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina
Fil: Youngflesh, Casey. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Zilio, Giacomo. Université Montpellier II; Francia
Fil: Zimmer, Cédric. Université Sorbonne Paris Nord; Francia
Fil: Zimmerman, Gregory Mark. Lake Superior State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Zitomer, Rachel A.. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos
Materia
ANALYTICAL HETEROGENEITY
METASCIENCE
MANY-ANALYST
REPLICATION CRISIS
REPRODUCIBILITY
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/264657

id CONICETDig_7581cacae175a1c25a23c3d2348c6466
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/264657
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biologyGould, ElliotFraser, Hannah S.Parker, Timothy H.Nakagawa, ShinichiGriffith, Simon C.Vesk, Peter A.Fidler, FionaHamilton, Daniel G.Abbey Lee, Robin N.Abbott, Jessica K.Aguirre, Luis A.Alcaraz, CarlesAloni, IrithAltschul, DrewArekar, KunalAtkins, Jeff W.Atkinson, JoeBaker, Christopher M.Barrett, MeghanBell, KristianBello, Suleiman KehindeBeltrán, IvánBerauer, Bernd J.Bertram, Michael GrantPalacio, Facundo XavierYoungflesh, CaseyZilio, GiacomoZimmer, CédricZimmerman, Gregory MarkZitomer, Rachel A.ANALYTICAL HETEROGENEITYMETASCIENCEMANY-ANALYSTREPLICATION CRISISREPRODUCIBILITYhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.Fil: Gould, Elliot. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Fraser, Hannah S.. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Parker, Timothy H.. Whitman College; Estados UnidosFil: Nakagawa, Shinichi. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Griffith, Simon C.. Macquarie University; AustraliaFil: Vesk, Peter A.. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Fidler, Fiona. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Hamilton, Daniel G.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Abbey Lee, Robin N.. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland; SueciaFil: Abbott, Jessica K.. Lund University; SueciaFil: Aguirre, Luis A.. University of Massachusetts; Estados UnidosFil: Alcaraz, Carles. Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries; EspañaFil: Aloni, Irith. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Altschul, Drew. The University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Arekar, Kunal. Indian Institute of Science; IndiaFil: Atkins, Jeff W.. United States Department Of Agriculture. Horticultural Research Laboratory;Fil: Atkinson, Joe. University Aarhus; DinamarcaFil: Baker, Christopher M.. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Barrett, Meghan. Purdue University; Estados Unidos. Indiana University; Estados UnidosFil: Bell, Kristian. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Bello, Suleiman Kehinde. King Abdulaziz University; Arabia SauditaFil: Beltrán, Iván. Macquarie University; AustraliaFil: Berauer, Bernd J.. University of Hohenheim; AlemaniaFil: Bertram, Michael Grant. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (slu);Fil: Palacio, Facundo Xavier. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Ornitología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Youngflesh, Casey. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Zilio, Giacomo. Université Montpellier II; FranciaFil: Zimmer, Cédric. Université Sorbonne Paris Nord; FranciaFil: Zimmerman, Gregory Mark. Lake Superior State University; Estados UnidosFil: Zitomer, Rachel A.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosBioMed Central2025-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/264657Gould, Elliot; Fraser, Hannah S.; Parker, Timothy H.; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Griffith, Simon C.; et al.; Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology; BioMed Central; Bmc Biology; 23; 1; 2-2025; 1-361741-7007CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-024-02101-xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s12915-024-02101-xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:33:40Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/264657instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:33:41.136CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
title Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
spellingShingle Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
Gould, Elliot
ANALYTICAL HETEROGENEITY
METASCIENCE
MANY-ANALYST
REPLICATION CRISIS
REPRODUCIBILITY
title_short Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
title_full Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
title_fullStr Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
title_full_unstemmed Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
title_sort Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Gould, Elliot
Fraser, Hannah S.
Parker, Timothy H.
Nakagawa, Shinichi
Griffith, Simon C.
Vesk, Peter A.
Fidler, Fiona
Hamilton, Daniel G.
Abbey Lee, Robin N.
Abbott, Jessica K.
Aguirre, Luis A.
Alcaraz, Carles
Aloni, Irith
Altschul, Drew
Arekar, Kunal
Atkins, Jeff W.
Atkinson, Joe
Baker, Christopher M.
Barrett, Meghan
Bell, Kristian
Bello, Suleiman Kehinde
Beltrán, Iván
Berauer, Bernd J.
Bertram, Michael Grant
Palacio, Facundo Xavier
Youngflesh, Casey
Zilio, Giacomo
Zimmer, Cédric
Zimmerman, Gregory Mark
Zitomer, Rachel A.
author Gould, Elliot
author_facet Gould, Elliot
Fraser, Hannah S.
Parker, Timothy H.
Nakagawa, Shinichi
Griffith, Simon C.
Vesk, Peter A.
Fidler, Fiona
Hamilton, Daniel G.
Abbey Lee, Robin N.
Abbott, Jessica K.
Aguirre, Luis A.
Alcaraz, Carles
Aloni, Irith
Altschul, Drew
Arekar, Kunal
Atkins, Jeff W.
Atkinson, Joe
Baker, Christopher M.
Barrett, Meghan
Bell, Kristian
Bello, Suleiman Kehinde
Beltrán, Iván
Berauer, Bernd J.
Bertram, Michael Grant
Palacio, Facundo Xavier
Youngflesh, Casey
Zilio, Giacomo
Zimmer, Cédric
Zimmerman, Gregory Mark
Zitomer, Rachel A.
author_role author
author2 Fraser, Hannah S.
Parker, Timothy H.
Nakagawa, Shinichi
Griffith, Simon C.
Vesk, Peter A.
Fidler, Fiona
Hamilton, Daniel G.
Abbey Lee, Robin N.
Abbott, Jessica K.
Aguirre, Luis A.
Alcaraz, Carles
Aloni, Irith
Altschul, Drew
Arekar, Kunal
Atkins, Jeff W.
Atkinson, Joe
Baker, Christopher M.
Barrett, Meghan
Bell, Kristian
Bello, Suleiman Kehinde
Beltrán, Iván
Berauer, Bernd J.
Bertram, Michael Grant
Palacio, Facundo Xavier
Youngflesh, Casey
Zilio, Giacomo
Zimmer, Cédric
Zimmerman, Gregory Mark
Zitomer, Rachel A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv ANALYTICAL HETEROGENEITY
METASCIENCE
MANY-ANALYST
REPLICATION CRISIS
REPRODUCIBILITY
topic ANALYTICAL HETEROGENEITY
METASCIENCE
MANY-ANALYST
REPLICATION CRISIS
REPRODUCIBILITY
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.
Fil: Gould, Elliot. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Fraser, Hannah S.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Parker, Timothy H.. Whitman College; Estados Unidos
Fil: Nakagawa, Shinichi. University of New South Wales; Australia
Fil: Griffith, Simon C.. Macquarie University; Australia
Fil: Vesk, Peter A.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Fidler, Fiona. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Hamilton, Daniel G.. Monash University; Australia
Fil: Abbey Lee, Robin N.. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland; Suecia
Fil: Abbott, Jessica K.. Lund University; Suecia
Fil: Aguirre, Luis A.. University of Massachusetts; Estados Unidos
Fil: Alcaraz, Carles. Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries; España
Fil: Aloni, Irith. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; Israel
Fil: Altschul, Drew. The University of Edinburgh; Reino Unido
Fil: Arekar, Kunal. Indian Institute of Science; India
Fil: Atkins, Jeff W.. United States Department Of Agriculture. Horticultural Research Laboratory;
Fil: Atkinson, Joe. University Aarhus; Dinamarca
Fil: Baker, Christopher M.. University of Melbourne; Australia
Fil: Barrett, Meghan. Purdue University; Estados Unidos. Indiana University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bell, Kristian. Deakin University; Australia
Fil: Bello, Suleiman Kehinde. King Abdulaziz University; Arabia Saudita
Fil: Beltrán, Iván. Macquarie University; Australia
Fil: Berauer, Bernd J.. University of Hohenheim; Alemania
Fil: Bertram, Michael Grant. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (slu);
Fil: Palacio, Facundo Xavier. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Ornitología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina
Fil: Youngflesh, Casey. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Zilio, Giacomo. Université Montpellier II; Francia
Fil: Zimmer, Cédric. Université Sorbonne Paris Nord; Francia
Fil: Zimmerman, Gregory Mark. Lake Superior State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Zitomer, Rachel A.. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos
description Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025-02
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/264657
Gould, Elliot; Fraser, Hannah S.; Parker, Timothy H.; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Griffith, Simon C.; et al.; Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology; BioMed Central; Bmc Biology; 23; 1; 2-2025; 1-36
1741-7007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/264657
identifier_str_mv Gould, Elliot; Fraser, Hannah S.; Parker, Timothy H.; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Griffith, Simon C.; et al.; Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology; BioMed Central; Bmc Biology; 23; 1; 2-2025; 1-36
1741-7007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-024-02101-x
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s12915-024-02101-x
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613036813320192
score 13.070432