Following the online publication of
four errors were identified. In accordance with the journal’s Permanency of Content Policy (
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.
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."
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:
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).
| Figure Number and Displayed Variable (Page Number) | Incorrect Information (Underlined) | Corrected Information (Underlined) |
|---|---|---|
| Figure 8: Open Data |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with available |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with available |
| 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 |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with |
| Figure 13: Effect Size |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers |
| 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 |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with |
| 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 |
The red dashed line indicates the regression line (statistical details in the text) for the proportion of papers with |
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: