Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing

Cortex

Volumn 66, Issue , 2015, Pages 1-2

  Chambers, Christopher D ^a   Dienes, Zoltan ^b   McIntosh, Robert D ^c   Rotshtein, Pia ^d   Willmes, Klaus ^e  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84927713973     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: 19738102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Bezeau S., Graves R. Statistical power and effect sizes of clinical neuropsychology research. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 2001, 23:399-406.
2. Button K.S., Ioannidis J.P., Mokrysz C., Nosek B.A., Flint J., Robinson E.S., et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013, 14:365-376.
3. Chambers C.D. Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 2013, 49:609-610.
4. Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 1962, 65:145-153.
5. Faneli D. "Positive" results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One 2010, 5:e10068.
6. John L.K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 2012, 23:524-532.
7. Kerr N.L. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1998, 2:196-217.
8. Makel M.C., Plucker J.A., Hegarty B. Replications in psychology research: how often do they really occur?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:537-542.
9. Nosek B.A., Spies J.R., Motyl M. Scientific utopia: II. restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:615-631.
10. Sassenhagen J., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex 2015, 66:A3-A20.
11. Simmons J.P., Nelson L.D., Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 2011, 22:359-366.
12. Ware J.J., Munafò M.R. Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions. Addiction 2015, 110:4-8.
13. Wicherts J.M., Bakker M., Molenaar D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One 2011, 6:e26828.
14. Wicherts J.M., Borsboom D., Kats J., Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist 2006, 61:726-728.