Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods

Diana C. Mutz and Robin Pemantle

Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2015, vol. 2, issue 2, 192-215

Abstract: In this essay, we closely examine three aspects of the Reporting Guidelines for this journal, as described by Gerber et al. (2014, Journal of Experimental Political Science 1(1): 81–98) in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Experimental Political Science. These include manipulation checks and when the reporting of response rates is appropriate. The third, most critical, issue concerns the committee's recommendations for detecting errors in randomization. This is an area where there is evidence of widespread confusion about experimental methods throughout our major journals. Given that a goal of the Journal of Experimental Political Science is promoting best practices and a better understanding of experimental methods across the discipline, we recommend changes to the Standards that will allow the journal to play a leading role in correcting these misunderstandings.

Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:2:y:2015:i:02:p:192-215_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Experimental Political Science from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().