Abstract:Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan's canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned "preferred" theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves-however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a 'replication crisis' if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants' free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.

Cognitive biases and research miscitations

Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review

Theory of citing

Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications

The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management

Mistakes in Thinking about Cognitive Science and How to Reduce Them

MyCites: a proposal to mark and report inaccurate citations in scholarly publications

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate

Motivated Errors

The reverberation of implementation errors in a neuroimaging meta-analytic software package: A citation analysis to a technical report on GingerALE

Misstatements, misperceptions, and mistakes in controlling for covariates in observational research

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

Inaccurate Citations in Biomedical Journalism: Effect on the Impact Factor of the American Journal of Roentgenology

Trends in Self-citation Rates in High-impact Neurology, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry Journals

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists' attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

A memory-theoretic account of citation propagation

Shortcut citations in the methods section: Frequency, problems, and strategies for responsible reuse

Citation bias, diversity, and ethics

Conceptual and Methodological Pitfalls in Experimental Studies: An Overview, and the Case of Alzheimer’s Disease

Quotation Errors in High-Impact-Factor Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Journals