Literature DB >> 26173121

PsychDisclosure.org : Grassroots Support for Reforming Reporting Standards in Psychology.

Etienne P LeBel1, Denny Borsboom2, Roger Giner-Sorolla3, Fred Hasselman4, Kurt R Peters5, Kate A Ratliff6, Colin Tucker Smith6.   

Abstract

There is currently an unprecedented level of doubt regarding the reliability of research findings in psychology. Many recommendations have been made to improve the current situation. In this article, we report results from PsychDisclosure.org, a novel open-science initiative that provides a platform for authors of recently published articles to disclose four methodological design specification details that are not required to be disclosed under current reporting standards but that are critical for accurate interpretation and evaluation of reported findings. Grassroots sentiment-as manifested in the positive and appreciative response to our initiative-indicates that psychologists want to see changes made at the systemic level regarding disclosure of such methodological details. Almost 50% of contacted researchers disclosed the requested design specifications for the four methodological categories (excluded subjects, nonreported conditions and measures, and sample size determination). Disclosed information provided by participating authors also revealed several instances of questionable editorial practices, which need to be thoroughly examined and redressed. On the basis of these results, we argue that the time is now for mandatory methods disclosure statements for all psychology journals, which would be an important step forward in improving the reliability of findings in psychology.
© The Author(s) 2013.

Keywords:  disclosure; methodological design specifications; methodology; reporting standards

Year:  2013        PMID: 26173121     DOI: 10.1177/1745691613491437

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  15 in total

1.  Making sense of the noise: Replication difficulties of Correll's (2008) modulation of 1/f noise in a racial bias task.

Authors:  Christine Madurski; Etienne P LeBel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-08

2.  Investigating the psychometric properties of the Suicide Stroop Task.

Authors:  Kelly M Wilson; Alexander J Millner; Randy P Auerbach; Catherine R Glenn; Jaclyn C Kearns; Olivia J Kirtley; Sadia Najmi; Rory C O'Connor; Jeremy G Stewart; Christine B Cha
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2019-05-09

3.  Big secrets do not necessarily cause hills to appear steeper.

Authors:  Etienne P LeBel; Christopher J Wilbur
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-06

4.  The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science.

Authors:  Gregory Francis
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-10

5.  The ordinal effects of ostracism: a meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies.

Authors:  Chris H J Hartgerink; Ilja van Beest; Jelte M Wicherts; Kipling D Williams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking.

Authors:  Jelte M Wicherts; Coosje L S Veldkamp; Hilde E M Augusteijn; Marjan Bakker; Robbie C M van Aert; Marcel A L M van Assen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-25

7.  Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists.

Authors:  Franca Agnoli; Jelte M Wicherts; Coosje L S Veldkamp; Paolo Albiero; Roberto Cubelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research.

Authors:  Marjan Bakker; Jelte M Wicherts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Internal conceptual replications do not increase independent replication success.

Authors:  Richard Kunert
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

10.  Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Hannah Fraser; Tim Parker; Shinichi Nakagawa; Ashley Barnett; Fiona Fidler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.