Example Report

🟢 no problems detected;
🟡 something to check;
🔴 possible problems detected;
🔵 informational only;
⚪️ not applicable;
⚫️ check failed

Exact P-Values

You may have reported some imprecise p-values

text	p_comp	p_value	section	div	p	s
p > .05	>	0.05	results	3	2	2

Showing 1 of 1 rows

You described effects as marginally/borderline/close to significant. It is better to write ‘did not reach the threshold alpha for significance’.

text	section	div	p	s
The paper shows examples of (1) open and closed OSF links; (2) citation of retracted papers; (3) missing/mismatched citations and references; (4) imprecise reporting of p-values; and (5) use of “marginally significant” to describe non-significant findings.	abstract	0	1	3
On average researchers in the experimental condition found the app marginally significantly more useful (M = 5.06) than researchers in the control condition found the checklist (M = 4.5), t(97.2) = -1.96, p = 0.152.	results	3	2	1

Showing 2 of 2 rows

No effect sizes were detected for any t-tests or F-tests. The Journal Article Reporting Standards state effect sizes should be reported.

text	div	p	s	test	test_text
On average researchers in the experimental (app) condition made fewer mistakes (M = 9.12) than researchers in the control (checklist) condition (M = 10.9), t(97.7) = 2.9, p = 0.005.	3	1	2	t-test	t(97.7) = 2.9
On average researchers in the experimental condition found the app marginally significantly more useful (M = 5.06) than researchers in the control condition found the checklist (M = 4.5), t(97.2) = -1.96, p = 0.152.	3	2	1	t-test	t(97.2) = -1.96

Showing 2 of 2 rows

We detected possible errors in test statistics

	test_type	df2	test_comp	test_value	p_comp	reported_p	computed_p	raw	error	decision_error	one_tailed_in_txt	apa_factor	text	section	div	p	s
2	t	97.2	=	-1.96	=	0.152	0.0528594	t(97.2) = -1.96, p = 0.152	TRUE	FALSE	FALSE	1	On average researchers in the experimental condition found the app marginally significantly more useful (M = 5.06) than researchers in the control condition found the checklist (M = 4.5), t(97.2) = -1.96, p = 0.152.	results	3	2	1

Showing 1 of 1 rows

We detected closed OSF links

text	section	div	p	s	osf_id	osf_type	public	name	description	category	registration	preprint	parent	project	status
osf.io/5tbm9	method	2	1	2	5tbm9	private	FALSE	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	closed
osf.io/5tbm9	results	3	1	1	5tbm9	private	FALSE	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	closed
osf.io/629bx	results	3	1	1	629bx	nodes	TRUE	Public			FALSE	FALSE	cxjg4	cxjg4	open

Showing 3 of 3 rows

You cited some papers in the Retraction Watch database (as of 2025-05-20). These may be retracted, have corrections, or expressions of concern.

bib_id	ref	doi	bibtype	title	journal	year	authors	retractionwatch	text
b0	Gino F, Wiltermuth SS (2014). “Retracted: Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity.” Psychological Science, 25(4), 973-981. doi:10.1177/0956797614520714 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714.	10.1177/0956797614520714	Article	Retracted: Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity	Psychological Science	2014	F Gino, S S Wiltermuth	Retraction	Although intentional dishonestly might be a successful way to boost creativity (Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014), it is safe to say most mistakes researchers make are unintentional.

Showing 1 of 1 rows

This module relies on Grobid correctly parsing the references. There may be some false positives.

There are references that are not cited or citations that are not referenced

bib_id	ref	doi	bibtype	title	journal	year	authors	missing
(Smithy, 2020)	From a human factors perspective, human error is a symptom of a poor design (Smithy, 2020).	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	reference
b1	Smith F (2021). “Human error is a symptom of a poor design.” Journal of Journals, 0(0), 0. doi:10.0000/0123456789 https://doi.org/10.0000/0123456789.	10.0000/0123456789	Article	Human error is a symptom of a poor design	Journal of Journals	2021	F Smith	citation

Showing 2 of 2 rows