Transparent reporting items for simulation studies evaluating statistical methods: Foundations for reproducibility and reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Simulation studies are essential tools to assess statistical methods. Functioning as controlled experiments, simulations generate data from known underlying processes. However, unclear or incomplete reporting of simulation studies can impact their interpretability and reproducibility, potentially leading to the misuse of statistical methods. While Morris et al. (2019, Stat Med, 38, p. 2074) recently provided guidance on the planning and conduct of simulation studies for statistical method evaluation, there is currently no comprehensive set of reporting guidelines in ecology and evolutionary biology. Here, we propose 11 reporting items for statistical simulation studies extending on Morris and colleagues' guidance. These items span across three stages: planning, coding and analysis. We also clarify the terminology related to statistical components and the broad purposes of statistical simulation studies. To highlight our proposed reporting items with current practices, we surveyed 100 articles in ecology and evolution journals that included a simulation study evaluating a statistical method. Our survey found room for improvement in more transparent reporting to ensure clear evaluation of statistical methods. Most notably, only a small proportion of articles reported a Monte Carlo uncertainty (17%; 17 out of 98), and 32% (32 out of 100) articles did not provide code. Beyond the proposed reporting items, we discuss the benefits of open science tools to enhance the reproducibility of simulation studies. Specifically, we propose the registration of statistical simulation studies to enhance planning, reporting and collaboration. We aim to instigate discussions to improve the reporting of simulation studies for statistical method research. The reporting items we propose, along with open science tools, serve as a template for developing standards and guidelines for simulation studies evaluating statistical methods. These reporting guidelines will help enhance reproducibility and indirectly encourage more consideration in the design and conduct of these simulation studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.652 | 0.903 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".