Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34378175›Full record

ArticleLearning & behavior2021

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? A discussion.

Richard M Shiffrin, Dora Matzke, Jonathon D Crystal, E-J Wagenmakers, Suyog H Chandramouli, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Marco Zorzi, Richard D Morey, Mary C Murphy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How can we make sound replication decisions?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Dialogues about the practice of science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Bayes Factors for Mixed Models: Perspective on Responses.Computational brain & behavior · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Richard M ShiffrinIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Dora MatzkeDepartment of Psychological Methods, Room G 0.29, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, PO Box 15906, 1001 NK, Valckenierstraat 59, 1018 XE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jonathon D CrystalIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
E-J WagenmakersDepartment of Psychological Methods, Room G 0.29, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, PO Box 15906, 1001 NK, Valckenierstraat 59, 1018 XE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. EJ.Wagenmakers@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1596-1034
Suyog H ChandramouliUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Joachim VandekerckhoveUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Marco ZorziUniversity of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Richard D MoreyCardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Mary C MurphyIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Roberts (2020, Learning & Behavior, 48[2], 191-192) discussed research claiming honeybees can do arithmetic. Some readers of this research might regard such claims as unlikely. The present authors used this example as a basis for a debate on the criterion that ought to be used for publication of results or conclusions that could be viewed as unlikely by a significant number of readers, editors, or reviewers.

Indexed as

LearningAnimalsBeesComparative cognitionEvidenceExtraordinary claimsNumerical cognitionPublication criteria

Identifiers

PMID34378175
PMCPMC8410695

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.