scientific-writer 2.1.1__py3-none-any.whl → 2.2.2__py3-none-any.whl

scientific_writer/.claude/skills/scientific-critical-thinking/references/common_biases.md

@@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
+# Common Biases in Scientific Research
+
+## Cognitive Biases Affecting Researchers
+
+### 1. Confirmation Bias
+**Description:** Tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms preexisting beliefs.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Designing studies that can only support the hypothesis
+- Interpreting ambiguous results as supportive
+- Remembering hits and forgetting misses
+- Selectively citing literature that agrees
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Preregister hypotheses and analysis plans
+- Actively seek disconfirming evidence
+- Use blinded data analysis
+- Consider alternative hypotheses
+
+### 2. Hindsight Bias (I-Knew-It-All-Along Effect)
+**Description:** After an event, people perceive it as having been more predictable than it actually was.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)
+- Claiming predictions that weren't made
+- Underestimating surprise at results
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Document predictions before data collection
+- Preregister studies
+- Distinguish exploratory from confirmatory analyses
+
+### 3. Publication Bias (File Drawer Problem)
+**Description:** Positive/significant results are more likely to be published than negative/null results.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Literature appears to support effects that don't exist
+- Overestimation of effect sizes
+- Inability to estimate true effects from published literature
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Publish null results
+- Use preregistration and registered reports
+- Conduct systematic reviews with grey literature
+- Check for funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses
+
+### 4. Anchoring Bias
+**Description:** Over-reliance on the first piece of information encountered.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Initial hypotheses unduly influence interpretation
+- First studies in a field set expectations
+- Pilot data biases main study interpretation
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Consider multiple initial hypotheses
+- Evaluate evidence independently
+- Use structured decision-making
+
+### 5. Availability Heuristic
+**Description:** Overestimating likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Overemphasizing recent or dramatic findings
+- Neglecting base rates
+- Anecdotal evidence overshadowing statistics
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Consult systematic reviews, not memorable papers
+- Consider base rates explicitly
+- Use statistical thinking, not intuition
+
+### 6. Bandwagon Effect
+**Description:** Adopting beliefs because many others hold them.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Following research trends without critical evaluation
+- Citing widely-cited papers without reading
+- Accepting "textbook knowledge" uncritically
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Evaluate evidence independently
+- Read original sources
+- Question assumptions
+
+### 7. Belief Perseverance
+**Description:** Maintaining beliefs even after evidence disproving them.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Defending theories despite contradictory evidence
+- Finding ad hoc explanations for discrepant results
+- Dismissing replication failures
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Explicitly consider what evidence would change your mind
+- Update beliefs based on evidence
+- Distinguish between theories and ego
+
+### 8. Outcome Bias
+**Description:** Judging decisions based on outcomes rather than the quality of the decision at the time.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Valuing lucky guesses over sound methodology
+- Dismissing good studies with null results
+- Rewarding sensational findings over rigorous methods
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Evaluate methodology independently of results
+- Value rigor and transparency
+- Recognize role of chance
+
+## Experimental and Methodological Biases
+
+### 9. Selection Bias
+**Description:** Systematic differences between those selected for study and those not selected.
+
+**Types:**
+- **Sampling bias:** Non-random sample
+- **Attrition bias:** Systematic dropout
+- **Volunteer bias:** Self-selected participants differ
+- **Berkson's bias:** Hospital patients differ from general population
+- **Survivorship bias:** Only examining "survivors"
+
+**Detection:**
+- Compare characteristics of participants vs. target population
+- Analyze dropout patterns
+- Consider who is missing from the sample
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Random sampling
+- Track and analyze non-responders
+- Use strategies to minimize dropout
+- Report participant flow diagrams
+
+### 10. Observer Bias (Detection Bias)
+**Description:** Researchers' expectations influence observations or measurements.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Measuring outcomes differently across groups
+- Interpreting ambiguous results based on group assignment
+- Unconsciously cueing participants
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Blinding of observers/assessors
+- Objective, automated measurements
+- Standardized protocols
+- Inter-rater reliability checks
+
+### 11. Performance Bias
+**Description:** Systematic differences in care provided to comparison groups.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Treating experimental group differently
+- Providing additional attention to one group
+- Differential adherence to protocols
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Standardize all procedures
+- Blind participants and providers
+- Use placebo controls
+- Monitor protocol adherence
+
+### 12. Measurement Bias (Information Bias)
+**Description:** Systematic errors in how variables are measured.
+
+**Types:**
+- **Recall bias:** Systematic differences in accuracy of recall
+- **Social desirability bias:** Responding in socially acceptable ways
+- **Interviewer bias:** Interviewer's characteristics affect responses
+- **Instrument bias:** Measurement tools systematically err
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Use validated, objective measures
+- Standardize data collection
+- Blind participants to hypotheses
+- Verify self-reports with objective data
+
+### 13. Confounding Bias
+**Description:** Effect of extraneous variable mixed with the variable of interest.
+
+**Examples:**
+- Age confounding relationship between exercise and health
+- Socioeconomic status confounding education and outcomes
+- Indication bias in treatment studies
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Randomization
+- Matching
+- Statistical adjustment
+- Stratification
+- Restriction
+
+### 14. Reporting Bias
+**Description:** Selective reporting of results.
+
+**Types:**
+- **Outcome reporting bias:** Selectively reporting outcomes
+- **Time-lag bias:** Delayed publication of negative results
+- **Language bias:** Publishing positive results in English
+- **Citation bias:** Preferentially citing positive studies
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Preregister all outcomes
+- Report all planned analyses
+- Distinguish primary from secondary outcomes
+- Use study registries
+
+### 15. Spectrum Bias
+**Description:** Test performance varies depending on the spectrum of disease severity in the sample.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Diagnostic tests appearing more accurate in extreme cases
+- Treatment effects differing by severity
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Test in representative samples
+- Report performance across disease spectrum
+- Avoid case-control designs for diagnostic studies
+
+### 16. Lead-Time Bias
+**Description:** Apparent survival benefit due to earlier detection, not improved outcomes.
+
+**Example:**
+- Screening detecting disease earlier makes survival seem longer, even if death occurs at same age
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Measure mortality, not just survival from diagnosis
+- Use randomized screening trials
+- Consider length-time and overdiagnosis bias
+
+### 17. Length-Time Bias
+**Description:** Screening disproportionately detects slower-growing, less aggressive cases.
+
+**Example:**
+- Slow-growing cancers detected more often than fast-growing ones, making screening appear beneficial
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Randomized trials with mortality endpoints
+- Consider disease natural history
+
+### 18. Response Bias
+**Description:** Systematic pattern in how participants respond.
+
+**Types:**
+- **Acquiescence bias:** Tendency to agree
+- **Extreme responding:** Always choosing extreme options
+- **Neutral responding:** Avoiding extreme responses
+- **Demand characteristics:** Responding based on perceived expectations
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Mix positive and negative items
+- Use multiple response formats
+- Blind participants to hypotheses
+- Use behavioral measures
+
+## Statistical and Analysis Biases
+
+### 19. P-Hacking (Data Dredging)
+**Description:** Manipulating data or analyses until significant results emerge.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Collecting data until significance reached
+- Testing multiple outcomes, reporting only significant ones
+- Trying multiple analysis methods
+- Excluding "outliers" to reach significance
+- Subgroup analyses until finding significance
+
+**Detection:**
+- Suspiciously perfect p-values (just below .05)
+- Many researcher degrees of freedom
+- Undisclosed analyses
+- Fishing expeditions
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Preregister analysis plans
+- Report all analyses conducted
+- Correct for multiple comparisons
+- Distinguish exploratory from confirmatory
+
+### 20. HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)
+**Description:** Presenting post hoc hypotheses as if they were predicted a priori.
+
+**Why problematic:**
+- Inflates apparent evidence
+- Conflates exploration with confirmation
+- Misrepresents the scientific process
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Preregister hypotheses
+- Clearly label exploratory analyses
+- Require replication of unexpected findings
+
+### 21. Base Rate Neglect
+**Description:** Ignoring prior probability when evaluating evidence.
+
+**Example:**
+- Test with 95% accuracy in rare disease (1% prevalence): positive result only 16% likely to indicate disease
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Always consider base rates/prior probability
+- Use Bayesian reasoning
+- Report positive and negative predictive values
+
+### 22. Regression to the Mean
+**Description:** Extreme measurements tend to be followed by less extreme ones.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Treatment effects in extreme groups may be regression artifacts
+- "Sophomore slump" in high performers
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Use control groups
+- Consider natural variation
+- Don't select based on extreme baseline values without controls
+
+### 23. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
+**Description:** Selecting data after seeing patterns, like shooting arrows then drawing targets around clusters.
+
+**Manifestations:**
+- Finding patterns in random data
+- Subgroup analyses selected post hoc
+- Geographic clustering studies without correction
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Prespecify hypotheses
+- Correct for multiple comparisons
+- Replicate findings in independent data
+
+## Reducing Bias: Best Practices
+
+### Study Design
+1. Randomization
+2. Blinding (single, double, triple)
+3. Control groups
+4. Adequate sample size
+5. Preregistration
+
+### Data Collection
+1. Standardized protocols
+2. Validated instruments
+3. Objective measures when possible
+4. Multiple observers/raters
+5. Complete data collection
+
+### Analysis
+1. Intention-to-treat analysis
+2. Prespecified analyses
+3. Appropriate statistical tests
+4. Multiple comparison corrections
+5. Sensitivity analyses
+
+### Reporting
+1. Complete transparency
+2. CONSORT, PRISMA, or similar guidelines
+3. Report all outcomes
+4. Distinguish exploratory from confirmatory
+5. Share data and code
+
+### Meta-Level
+1. Adversarial collaboration
+2. Replication studies
+3. Open science practices
+4. Peer review
+5. Systematic reviews