Notes for analysis

[troettge]

• first 30 entries of form are pilot data and need to excluded (double check date)
• first few entries might have skipped the replication questions
• accidentally coded "Integration in two-way immersion education: Equalising linguistic benefits for all students" (0e3e42b8) as 64cf897b (coded at 12:27h on 1st Nov)
• when using Clarivate, journal titles are not stored with commas
• I did not consider additional methodological materials shared when they appear as appendix in the pdf of the paper

Need to double check:

• paper 0e08def6 is published online in 2010
• paper da673183 is published online in 2017
• paper 096bc6a0 is published online in 2016
• paper adb83706 is published online in 2017
• paper 0d859c02 is published online in 2017
• paper bf5f9a93 is published in 2021

[troettge]

double check JIF, when journal has no JIF, it shows the journal citation indicator (which looks very similar)

[LiamKeeble]

• I was unsure on whether to include papers on discourse analysis as an empirical study. I coded study types as `discourse analysis' so can exclude if necessary.
• I was also unsure on this front about a paper that included a few case studies. Coded study type as `case study', so can exclude if necessary.
• I also did not consider appendices in the pdf of papers as additional methodological materials shared.

[agboch]

Adding some of my comments:

• Article 13e813fe about animal communication (baboons) but with inferences about human language (lateralization) - exclude?
• I am coding most of the syntax analysis papers as typology (I think they are on the border of theoretical papers but frequently authors do collect data, e.g. by doing systematic searcher for their sentence examples online)
• Article 3d3e175d - Is it considered third party materials if authors refer to other articles describing a task battery or other (well-known or not) neuropsychological measures?
• Article 27a44cea - I had a similar problem as Liam with discourse analysis - mine had no systematically sampled empirical data, just en example, do I categorized it as no empirical data
• Article 4626f7e3 is predominantly about biological aspects/basis of language (which we said we would exclude) but also has a sample of individuals tested on a wide battery of linguistic tasks so I included it.
• Article b96a1a09 is about participant's preconceptions about language learning, not language learning itself, but I still coded it as a study about language (we might have to exclude it though)
• In several first articles I might have skipped processed data question (sorry!) - in all these cases, wherever I marked no availability of raw data, there was also no processed data shared.
• I think deciding up front about appendices being or not additional materials is problematic. Some articles I coded (e.g. 358da09b) had very extensive appendices with basically all stimuli provided and extensive additional instructions that I think would allow to reproduce the task - in these cases, I judge them as additional materials available.
• I ran into some cases where some materials were available from a third party, others via the first authors or in a supplementary file, but there was no way to select several options - I coded those as "Other" with a comment
• Unsure about data availability in e3042f06, might need to double check
• Article caa447f1 published in 2011 - when I chose "Other" in the issues, it did not jump through other sections so I put in NA in the required fields. Same with article 6a316045 (published in 2014).