#9162. Null and Void? Errors in Meta-analysis on Perceptual Disfluency and Recommendations to Improve Meta-analytical Reproducibility

August 2026publication date
Proposal available till 26-05-2025
4 total number of authors per manuscript3510 $

The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for
Journal’s subject area:
Developmental and Educational Psychology;
Places in the authors’ list:
place 1place 2place 3place 4
FreeFreeFreeFree
1050 $940 $820 $700 $
Contract №9162.1 Contract №9162.2 Contract №9162.3 Contract №9162.4
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)

Abstract:
In the 20XX meta-analysis of Educational Psychology Review entitled “Null effects of perceptual disfluency on learning outcomes in a text-based educational context” by Xie, Zhou, and Liu, we identify some errors and inconsistencies in both the methodological approach and the reported results regarding coding and effect sizes. While from a technical point of view the meta-analysis aligns with current meta-analytical guidelines (e.g., PRISMA) and conforms to general meta-analytical requirements (e.g., considering publication bias), it exemplifies certain insufficient practices in the creation and review of meta-analysis. We criticize the lack of transparency and negligence of open-science practices in the generation and reporting of results, which complicate evaluation of the meta-analytical reproducibility, especially given the flexibility in subjective choices regarding the analytical approach and the flexibility in creating the database. Here we present a framework applicable to pre- and post-publication review on improving the Methods Reproducibility of meta-analysis.
Keywords:
Disfluency effect; Meta-analytical standards; Open-science; Reproducibility; Transparency

Contacts :
0