DOI: 10.7910/dvn/2rlsmg
title: Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative Survey of Beliefs Data

description: Data from the BRI Survey of Beliefs. Data is currently under embargo, and will become public at the end of 2022. For more information about the project, check the OSF page at https://osf.io/6av7k/. A brief description of the methods is provided below:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
Participants were recruited via open invites in social media and institutional emails. Recruitment criteria were age above 18 years old and having previous or current research experience. Only participants that completed the survey were included (69 total, where 20 are members from the BRI), and these were subsequently invited to prediction markets.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
Participants could choose between the 3 techniques that were selected for replications within the BRI: (1) MTT, an assay for mitochondrial activity/cell viability; (2) reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), an assay to measure relative RNA levels); and (3) Elevated Plus Maze (EPM), a behavioral task to assess anxiety in rodents. Each of these techniques contained 20 studies to be replicated. Participants made predictions for all 20 studies, except for members of the BRI, which did not forecast experiments their lab was involved in replicating.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
At the beginning of the survey, participants filled in personal information about their research experience and education. They also self-rated their theoretical knowledge of the technique, their practical experience and their knowledge on statistics and research methodology in a scale of 1-5.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
For each study, they were shown summary information containing a brief description of the experiment, the original figure or table, and information on effect size, sample size and statistics. Different survey versions were created where 10 of the studies had the link to the original paper and author/journal information, while the other 10 had none of this information. This means participants were blinded to additional information from the paper for half of their predictions, having access only to the abstract, figure and the summary.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
For each study, participants were asked the following questions:&lt;br&gt;
*For the purpose of the answers below, please consider the effect size and significance estimates of a fixed-effects meta-analysis of the 3 replications&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
 (1) "In your opinion, what is the probability that the replication will obtain an effect significantly different from 0 (p &lt;0.05) in the same direction as the original? (0-100%)"&lt;br&gt;
 &lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
 (2) "How large would you expect the effect size to be in the replication, relative to the original effect size? (in % of the original unstandardized effect size; 0 indicates no effect, while negative numbers indicate effects in the opposite direction)"&lt;br&gt;
 &lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
 (3) "How logistically and technically challenging to replicate this experiment seems to be (relative to other laboratory experiments using EPM/MTT/RT-PCR)?"&lt;br&gt;
 &lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
 (4) "If you were given the link to the original paper, did you open the paper and used this information for your predictions?"&lt;br&gt;
 &lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
Participants also had optional open fields to explicitly describe the factors they considered in their answers to questions 1 to 3 above for every experiment.&lt;br&gt;