English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Replications and the sharing of data with other researchers have become an essential part of the scientific process, and it is an aspect of the social sciences that has grown exponentially over the last few decades and is now required for most federally funded studies. Unfortunately, there are few guidelines or narratives for unexpected complications between replicators and those providing the data sets. The current article is a case study regarding a replication of a study of 270 criminally-justice involved individuals with substance use disorders, who were randomized either to self-help recovery homes, professionally led therapeutic communities or a control condition. The replicators and the original investigators arrived at different conclusions regarding critical post-incarceration outcomes. These types of discrepancies can have critical policy implications particularly as there are so few randomized studies examining post-incarceration outcomes for those released from jails and prisons. The contrasting conclusions were, in part, due to differences in a variety of conceptual and methodological issues. To avoid these types of difficulties, we propose several types of recommendations designed to enhance the scientific process for replication studies and secondary use data sets.

Policy and Scientific Implications of Compromised Replications