52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

This study explores the performance of classical methods for detecting publication bias, namely Egger's Regression test, Funnel Plot test, Begg's Rank Correlation and Trim and Fill method, in meta-analysis of studies that report multiple effects. Publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and a combination of both were generated. Egger's Regression and Funnel Plot test were extended to three-level models, and possible cutoffs for the 0 + estimator of the Trim and Fill method were explored. Furthermore, we checked whether the combination of results of several methods yielded a better control of Type I error rates. Results show that no method works well across all conditions, and that their performance depends mainly on the population effect size value and on the total variance.

We investigate the findings that liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations. We conducted a comprehensive literature search from major databases and other sources for primary studies that used the Moral Foundations Questionnaire and a typical measure of political orientation, a political self-placement item. We used a predefined process for independent extraction of effect sizes by two authors and ran both study-level and individual-level analyses. With 89 samples, 605 effect sizes, and 33,804 independent participants, in addition to 192,870 participants from the widely used YourMorals.org website, the basic differences about conservatives and liberals are supported. However, heterogeneity is moderate, and the results may be less generalizable than previously thought. The effect sizes obtained from the YourMorals.org data appear inflated compared to independent samples, which is partly related political interest and may be due to selfselection. The association of moral foundations to political orientation varies culturally (between regions and countries) and subculturally (between White and Black respondents an in response to political interest, but not in relation to other demographics). The associations also differ depending on the choice of the social or economic dimension and its labeling, supporting both the bidimensional model of political orientation and the findings that the dimensions are often strongly correlated. Oue findings have implications for interpreting published studies, as well as designing new ones where the political aspect of morality is relevant. The results are primarily limited by the homogeneity of the measures and included studies in terms of sample origins. MORAL FOUNDATIONS AND POLITICAL ORIENTATION Meta-analysis on correlation studies (not experimental)

Social relationships are of vital importance for children's and adolescents' development, and disruptions in these relationships can have serious implications. Such disruptions play a central role in both loneliness and social anxiety. Although both phenomena are closely related, they have largely been studied separately, and important questions have remained unanswered concerning how both go together within and across time. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed on 102 cross-sectional studies, published between 1981 and 2016, including 41,776 participants (39% males) with a mean age of 15.59 years. Longitudinal associations were examined in 10 studies, including 3,995 participants (46% males), using a novel technique that enables the examination of such associations even when these were not reported in the original empirical studies. Results indicated a strong, positive cross-sectional association between loneliness and social anxiety symptoms. This associations did not systematically differ in strength across childhood and adolescence. Moreover, results showed that loneliness and social anxiety symptoms were reciprocally associated over time. To conclude, loneliness and social anxiety symptoms are positively associated both within and across time, and across childhood and adolescence. Breaking this vicious cycle is of great importance, as both phenomena may be associated with profound problems in multiple domains of youth development. Moreover, failing to pay attention to both loneliness and social anxiety symptoms might substantially reduce the effectiveness of intervention programs focusing on either of the two.