Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond

AIMS Neuroscience

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 4-17

  Chambers, Christopher D ^a   Feredoes, Eva ^b   Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh D ^a   Etchells, Peter J ^c  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^c BATH SPA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923219832     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23737972     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4     Document Type: Editorial

References (32)

1. Ioannidis JPA. (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2: e124
2. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 23: 524-532
3. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22: 359-366
4. Kerr NL. (1998) HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2: 196-217
5. Makel MC, Plucker JA, Hegarty B. (2012) Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur? Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 537-542
6. Faneli D. (2010) "Positive" Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLos One 5: e10068
7. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, et al. (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14: 365-376
8. Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D. (2011) Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One 6: e26828
9. Cohen J. (1962) The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65: 145-153
10. Sterling TD. (1959) Publication Decisions and their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance-or Vice Versa. J Am Stat Assoc 54: 30-34
11. de Groot AD. (2014) The meaning of "significance" for different types of research [translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han L. J. van der Maas]. Acta Psychol (Amst) 148: 188-194
12. Nosek BA, Spies JR, Motyl M. (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 615-631
13. Ioannidis JPA. (2012) Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 645-654
14. Chambers CD. (2013) Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 49: 609-610
15. Wolfe J. (2013) Registered Reports and Replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Atten Percept Psycho 75: 781-783
16. Stahl C. (2014) Experimental psychology: toward reproducible research. Exp Psychol 61: 1-2
17. Munafo MR, Strain E. (2014) Registered Reports: A new submission format at Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend 137: 1-2
18. Nosek BA, Lakens D. (in press) Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc Psychol
19. hambers CD, Munafo MR. (2013) Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/2005/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration
20. Scott SK. (2013) Will pre-registration of studies be good for psychology?: https://sites.google.com/site/speechskscott/SpeakingOut/willpre-registrationofstudiesbegoodforpsychology
21. Scott SK. (2013) Pre-registration would put science in chains. Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/science-in-chains/2005954.article
22. Rouder J, Speckman P, Sun D, Morey R, Iverson G. (2009) Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 16: 225-237
23. Wagenmakers EJ. (2007) A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev 14: 779-804
24. Dienes Z. (2011) Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On? Perspect Psychol Sci 6: 274-290
25. Mathieu S, Chan AW, Ravaud P. (2013) Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS One 8: e59910
26. Gelman A, Loken E. (2014) The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Unpublished manuscript: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
27. Strube MJ. (2006) SNOOP:a program for demonstrating the consequences of premature and repeated null hypothesis testing. Behav Res Methods 38: 24-27
28. Fiedler K, Kutzner F, Krueger JI. (2012) The Long Way From a-Error Control to Validity Proper: Problems With a Short-Sighted False-Positive Debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 661-669
29. Whelan R, Conrod PJ, Poline JB, Lourdusamy A, Banaschewski T, et al. (2012) Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks. Nat Neurosci 15: 920-925
30. Brembs B, Button K, Munafo M. (2013) Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci 7: 291
31. Nelson LD. (2014) Preregistration: Not just for the Empiro-zealots. http://datacoladaorg/2014/01/07/12-preregistration-not-just-for-the-empiro-zealots/
32. World Medical A (2013) World medical association declaration of helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310: 2191-2194