THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF PSYCHOLOGY: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice

The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2019, Pages 1-274

  Chambers, Chris ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85204848858     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Book

References (418)

1. “Assessing the viability of electric vehicles for daily use,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =17132
2. “Facilitating intervention based on an enhanced understanding the antecedents and outcomes of debilitating exam-related anxiety,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx ?Id =43758
3. “Fundamental research on memory enables a robust criminal justice system,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =30209
4. “Vision science and road Safety,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =30208
5. “Human factors and space exploration,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =27640
6. “Cardiff research supports the creation of the UK Climate Change Committee,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =3480
7. “Influencing international tobacco policy on standardised tobacco packaging,” http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id =40192.
8. Daryl J. Bem, “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no. 3 (2011): 407, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524.
9. Peter Aldhous, “Is this evidence that we can see the future?,” New Scientist, 11 November 2010, www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html.
10. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html.
11. Stuart J. Ritchie, Richard Wiseman, and Christopher C. French, “Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect,” PLOS ONE 7, no. 3 (2012): e33423, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423.
12. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, and Han L. J. van der Maas, “Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi; Comment on Bem (2011),” (2011): 426, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022790.
13. This article is available freely at http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2011/WagenmakersEtAl2011_JPSP.pdf.
14. Georg Henrik von Wright, A Treatise on Induction and Probability (Oxfordshire: Psychology Press, 1951), 7: 86.
15. Peter C. Wason, “On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, no. 3 (1960): 129-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717.
16. Peter C. Wason, “Reasoning about a rule,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20, no. 3 (1968): 273-81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161.
17. Raymond S. Nickerson, “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises,” Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2 (1998): 175.
18. Saul M. Kassin, Itiel E. Dror, and Jeff Kukucka, “The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2, no. 1 (2013): 42-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.
19. Alan G. Gross, “The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science,” Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 3-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001.
20. Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha, “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” Psychological Review 94, no. 2 (1987): 211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211.
21. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34, no. 02 (2011): 57-74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
22. Theodore D. Sterling, “Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance-or vice versa,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 54, no. 285 (1959): 30-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497.
23. Robert Rosenthal, “The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results,” Psychological Bulletin 86, no. 3 (1979): 638, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
24. Theodore D. Sterling, W. L. Rosenbaum, and J. J. Weinkam, “Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa,” American Statistician 49, no. 1 (1995): 108-12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125.
25. Daniele Fanelli, “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences,” PLOS ONE 5, no. 4 (2010): e10068, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
26. www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/others.html.
27. https://www.elsevier.com/journals/cortex/0010-9452/guide-for-authors.
28. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/for_authors/general.html.
29. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/cercor/for_authors/general.html.
30. Robert Kail: “Reflections on five years as editor,” www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publi cations/observer/2012/november-12/reflections-on-five-years-as-editor.html.
31. Parts of this section have been adapted from an article on my personal blog: http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/you-cant-replicate-concept.html.
32. John A. Bargh, Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows, “Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 2 (1996): 230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230.
33. “Elderly-related words prime slow walking (#15),” http://www.psychfile drawer.org/replication.php?attempt =MTU%3D.
34. “A primer for how not to respond when someone fails to replicate your work with a discussion of why replication failures happen” by Dan Simons: http://plus.google.com/+DanielSimons/posts/VJH8wXxxc3f.
35. Stéphane Doyen, Olivier Klein, Cora-Lise Pichon, and Axel Cleeremans, “Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind?,” PLOS ONE 7, no. 1 (2012): e29081, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081.
36. John Bargh, “Nothing in their heads." The original post by Bargh was removed by Psychology Today but can still be read here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120308225833/http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201203/nothing-in-their-heads.
37. “A failed replication draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor,” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/.
38. Jay G. Hull, Laurie B. Slone, Karen B. Meteyer, and Amanda R. Matthews, “The nonconsciousness of self-consciousness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, no. 2 (2002): 406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.406.
39. Joseph Cesario, Jason E. Plaks, and E. Tory Higgins, “Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, no. 6 (2006): 893, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.893.
40. “Priming effects replicate just fine, thanks” by John Bargh: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201205/priming-effects-replicate-just-fine-thanks.
41. “How valid are our replication attempts” by Rolf Zwaan: http://rolfzwaan.blogspot.be/2013/06/how-valid-are-our-replication-attempts.html.
42. Harold Pashler and Christine R. Harris, “Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 531-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401.
43. Norbert L. Kerr, “HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2, no. 3 (1998): 196-217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
44. Kerr, “HARKing,” http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
45. Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec, “Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling,” Psychological Science (2012): 0956797611430953, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
46. D. J. Bem, “Writing the empirical journal article,” in Mark P. Zanna and John M. Darley, eds., The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist (New York: Random House, 1987). An online version of this article is available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20140701082131/http://www.writingcenter.uconn.edu/pdf/Writing_the_Empirical_Journal_Article _BEM.pdf.
47. For an excellent overview of NHST and common pitfalls, see the web resource “Statistics done wrong” by Alex Reinhart: http://www.statistics donewrong.com/index.html.
48. Steven Goodman, “A dirty dozen: Twelve p-value misconceptions,” Seminars in Hematology 45, no. 3 (2008): 135-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003.
49. Ronald Fisher, “The arrangement of field experiments,” Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture 33 (1926): 503-13. Available online at http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/15191/1/48.pdf.
50. Valen E. Johnson, “Revised standards for statistical evidence,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110, no. 48 (2013): 19313-17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313476110.
51. Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, “False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant,” Psychological Science (2011): 1359-66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
52. Dorothy Bishop, “Interpreting unexpected significant results,” http://deevy bee.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/interpreting-unexpected-significant.html.
53. Will M. Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, “Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief,” Science 336, no. 6080 (2012): 493-96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1215647.
54. “Evidence of publication bias in ‘Analytical thinking promotes religious disbelief,'" https://web.archive.org/web/20130817140545/http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p =130.
55. “Do religious people lack analytical skills?" by Neuroautomaton, https://web.archive.org/web/20130408053541/http://neuroautomaton.com/religious-analytical-skills/.
56. E. J. Masicampo and Daniel R. Lalande, “A peculiar prevalence of p values just below. 05,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, no. 11 (2012): 2271-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.711335.
57. Nathan C. Leggett, Nicole A. Thomas, Tobias Loetscher, and Michael E. R. Nicholls, “The life of p: ‘Just significant’ results are on the rise,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66, no. 12 (2013): 2303-9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863371.
58. Daniël Lakens, “On the challenges of drawing conclusions from p-values just below 0.05,” PeerJ 3 (2015): e1142, http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1142.
59. Uri Simonsohn, Leif D. Nelson, and Joseph P. Simmons, “P-curve: A key to the file-drawer,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, no. 2 (2014): 534, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033242.
60. The full text is freely available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2256237.
61. The authors also provide an online resource: http://p-curve.com/.
62. “Does your p-curve weigh as much as a duck?,” http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/does-your-p-curve-weigh-as-much-as-a-duck/.
63. Neuroskeptic, “False positive neuroscience,” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/06/30/false-positive-neuroscience/.
64. Joshua Carp, “The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature,” Neuroimage 63, no. 1 (2012): 289-300, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.004.
65. Tor D. Wager, Martin A. Lindquist, Thomas E. Nichols, Hedy Kober, and Jared X. Van Snellenberg, “Evaluating the consistency and specificity of neuroimaging data using meta-analysis,” Neuroimage 45, no. 1 (2009): S210-S221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.061.
66. Craig M. Bennett and Michael B. Miller, “How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging?,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1191, no. 1 (2010): 133-55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05446.x
67. Vaughan Bell: “How reliable are fMRI results?,” at http://mindhacks.com/2010/03/04/how-reliable-are-fmri-results/.
68. Russell Poldrack, Chris I. Baker, Joke Durnez, Krzysztof Gorgolewski, Paul M. Matthews, Marcus Munafò, Thomas Nichols, Jean-Baptiste Poline, Edward Vul, and Tal Yarkoni, “Scanning the Horizon: Future challenges for neuroimaging research,” bioRxiv (2016): 059188, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/08/01/059188.
69. Uri Simonsohn vs. Norbert Schwarz, https://web.archive.org/web/20160516032001/http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~uws/SPSP/post.pdf
70. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/spsp-discuss/simonsohn/spsp-discuss/izOh5lrQDgQ/zLud5bZvPPUJ for a heated debate.
71. “Replication, period. (A guest post by David Funder)" by David Funder, http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/replication-period-a-guest-post-by-david-funder/
72. “Friday Fun: One researcher’s p-curve analysis” by Michael Kraus, http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/friday-fun-one-researchers-p-curve.html.
73. Showing this requires a direct test, which was satisfied in both nonreplications of the original Bargh study. http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/some-reflections-on-the-bargh-doyen-elderly-walking-priming-brouhaha/.
74. “Priming effects replicate just fine, thanks” by John Bargh: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201205/priming-effects-replicate-just-fine-thanks.
75. Andrew Gelman and Eric Loken, “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,” Department of Statistics, Columbia University (2013), http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf.
76. Mark Stokes, “Biased debugging,” http://the-brain-box.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/biased-debugging.html.
77. See also an interesting example of how such an error was caught by cognitive neuroscientist Russ Poldrack: “Anat226 omy of a coding error,” http://www.russpoldrack.org/2013/02/anatomy-of-coding-error.html.
78. For more information, see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id =iFMhZ4dl1KcC&lpg =PR9&ots =ZM1C6gn8p2&dq =evans%20newstead%20byrne&lr&pg =PA247#v =onepage&q =selective%20scrutiny%20account&f =false.
79. “Are research psychologists more like detectives or lawyers?" by John A. Johnson, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201307/are-research-psychologists-more-detectives-or-lawyers-0.
80. Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, “A 21 word solution,” available at SSRN 2160588 (2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2160588.
81. Michael J. Strube, “SNOOP: A program for demonstrating the consequences of premature and repeated null hypothesis testing,” Behavior Research Methods 38, no. 1 (2006): 24-27, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03192746.
82. Software is available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20160422220546/http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~socpsy/Snoop.
83. Daniël Lakens, “Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses,” European Journal of Social Psychology 44, no. 7 (2014): 701-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023.
84. The article can be downloaded freely from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2333729.
85. Zoltan Dienes, “Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 3 (2011): 274-90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406920.
86. This paper can be freely downloaded from: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/Dienes%202011%20Bayes.pdf.
87. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Michael Lee, Tom Lodewyckx, and Geoffrey J. Iverson, “Bayesian versus frequentist inference,” in Bayesian Evaluation of Informative Hypotheses, 81-207 (New York: Springer, 2008), http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09612-4_9#page-1.
88. A. W. Edwards, Likelihood: Expanded Edition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 30.
89. James O. Berger, Robert L. Wolpert, M. J. Bayarri, M. H. DeGroot, Bruce M. Hill, David A. Lane, and Lucien LeCam, “The likelihood principle,” Lecture Notes-Monograph Series 6 (1988), http://web.uvic.ca/~dgiles/blog/Berger_and_Wolpert.pdf.
90. Dave Nussbaum, “The Stapel continuum,” http://web.archive.org/web/20140604081238/http://www.davenussbaum.com/the-stapel-continuum/.
91. Geoff Brumfiel, “Particles break light speed limit,” Nature News, 23 September 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html.
92. Robert Evans, "‘Faster than light’ particles threaten Einstein,” Reuters, 23 September 2011, http://web.archive.org/web/20150321055654/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110923.
93. Michael D. Lemonick, “Was Einstein wrong? A faster-than-light neutrino could be saying yes,” Time, 23 September 2011, http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2094665,00.html.
94. Chris Chambers, “Physics envy: Do ‘hard’ sciences hold the solution to the replication crisis in psychology?,” Guardian, 10 June 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jun/10/physics-envy-do-hard-sciences-hold-the-solution-to-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology.
95. For the full text of Feynman’s lecture, see http://web.archive.org/web/20160412070659/http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm.
96. Matthew C. Makel, Jonathan A. Plucker, and Boyd Hegarty, “Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 537-42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460688.
97. John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why science is not necessarily self-correcting,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 645-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056.
98. Christopher J. Ferguson and Moritz Heene, “A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 555-61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059.
99. The complete special issue of replication studies can be freely downloaded from http://econtent.hogrefe.com/toc/zsp/45/3.
100. Simone Schnall’s blog post can be read at http://web.archive.org/web/20140531143904/http://www.spspblog.org/simone-schnall-on-her-experience-with-a-registered-replication-project/.
101. Dan Gilbert’s extraordinary comment can be read at http://web.archive.org/web/20140531143904/http://www.spspblog.org/simone-schnall-on-her-experience-with-a-registered-replication-project/#comment-17137.
102. See http://web.archive.org/web/20141214024408/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Bullies.pdf.
103. For the full text of Kahneman’s letter, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/225285909/Kahneman-Commentary.
104. Adam K. Fetterman and Kai Sassenberg, “The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists,” PLOS ONE 10, no. 12 (2015): e0143723, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143723.
105. Andrew Wilson, “Psychology’s real replication problem: Our Methods sections,” http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/psychologys-real-replication-problem.html.
106. Jon Butterworth. Personal interview via e-mail. 2 June 2014.
107. Helen Czerski, personal interview via e-mail, 1 June 2014.
108. Katherine Mack. Personal interview via e-mail, 3 June 2014.
109. See http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-2.
110. Jason Mitchell, “On the emptiness of failed replications,” http://web.archive.org/web/20150604192510/http://wjh.harvard.edu/~jmitchel/writing/failed_science.htm.
111. Chris Said, “Jason Mitchell’s essay,” http://web.archive.org/web/20140916000231/http://filedrawer.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/jason-mitchells-essay/
112. Sean Mackinnon, “Response to Jason Mitchell’s ‘On the emptiness of failed replications,' " http://web.archive.org/web/20141013180548/http://osc.centerforopen science.org/2014/07/09/response-to-jason-mitchell/
113. Neuroskeptic, “On ‘On the emptiness of failed replications,'" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/07/07/emptiness-failed-replications/
114. Bob Lewis, “In defense of replication studies,” http://web.archive.org/web/20150904102838/http://trustinbob.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/in-defense-of-replication-studies.html
115. Dorothy Bishop, “Replication and reputation: Whose career matters?,” http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/replication-and-reputation-whose-career.html.
116. Wolfgang Stroebe and Fritz Strack, “The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 1 (2014): 59-71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450.
117. Daniel J. Simons, “The value of direct replication,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 1 (2014): 76-80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755.
118. Stefan Schmidt, “Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences,” Review of General Psychology 13, no. 2 (2009): 90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015108.
119. Jacob Cohen, “The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65, no. 3 (1962): 145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045186.
120. Peter Sedlmeier and Gerd Gigerenzer, “Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?,” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (1989): 309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.309.
121. Scott Bezeau and Roger Graves, “Statistical power and effect sizes of clinical neuropsychology research,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 23, no. 3 (2001): 399-406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/jcen.23.3.399.1181.
122. Katherine S. Button, John P. A. Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Flint, Emma S. J. Robinson, and Marcus R. Munafò, “Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, no. 5 (2013): 365-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475.
123. Klaus Fiedler, Florian Kutzner, and Joachim I. Krueger, “The long way from α-error control to validity proper problems with a short-sighted falsepositive debate,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 661-69, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462587.
124. Free software packages such as G* Power now make prospective power analysis easy. http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html.
125. Scott E. Maxwell, “The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies,” Psychological Methods 9, no. 2 (2004): 147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.147.
126. Scott E. Maxwell, Michael Y. Lau, and George S. Howard, “Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does ‘failure to replicate’ really mean?,” American Psychologist 70, no. 6 (2015): 487, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039400.
127. Rachel A. Smith, Timothy R. Levine, Kenneth A. Lachlan, and Thomas A. Fediuk, “The high cost of complexity in experimental design and data analysis: Type I and type II error rates in multiway ANOVA,” Human Communication Research 28, no. 4 (2002): 515-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00821.x.
128. Etienne P. LeBel, Denny Borsboom, Roger Giner-Sorolla, Fred Hasselman, Kurt R. Peters, Kate A. Ratliff, and Colin Tucker Smith, “Psychdisclosure.org grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 4 (2013): 424-32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491437.
129. Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, “A 21 word solution,” available at SSRN 2160588 (2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2160588.
130. Laura Badenes-Ribera, Dolores Frías-Navarro, Héctor Monterde-i-Bort, and Marcos Pascual-Soler, “Interpretation of the p value: A national survey study in academic psychologists from Spain,” Psicothema 27, no. 3 (2015): 290-95, http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.283
131. Laura Badenes-Ribera, Dolores Frias-Navarro, Bryan Iotti, Amparo Bonilla Campos, and Claudio Longobardi, “Misconceptions of the p-value among Chilean and Italian academic psychologists,” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016): 1247, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01247.
132. Steven Goodman, “A dirty dozen: Twelve p-value misconceptions,” Seminars in Hematology 45, no. 3 (2008): 135-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003.
133. Sander Nieuwenhuis, Birte U. Forstmann, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, “Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance,” Nature Neuroscience 14, no. 9 (2011): 1105-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2886
134. Andrew Gelman and Hal Stern, “The difference between ‘significant’ and ʼnot significant’ is not itself statistically significant,” American Statistician 60, no. 4 (2006): 328-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649.
135. This article can be downloaded freely from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf.
136. For more information on the conditions that should lead to retraction of articles, see the Retraction Guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.
137. Adam Marcus, “Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce,” http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/14/doing-the-right-thing-authors-retract-lubricant-paper-whose-findings-they-cant-reproduce/.
138. Similar examples can be found in neuroscience and biology. Ed Yong, “Narcolepsy paper retracted,” http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/30/narcolepsy-paper-retracted/.
139. Minhua Zhang and Michael L. Grieneisen, “The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media,” Scientometrics 96, no. 2 (2013): 573-87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0920-5.
140. Michael L. Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang, “A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature,” PLoS One 7, no. 10 (2012): e44118, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118.
141. Dan Simons, “Replication, retraction, and responsibility,” http://blog.dan simons.com/2014/01/replication-retraction-and.html.
142. John A. Bargh and Idit Shalev, “The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life,” Emotion 12, no. 1 (2012): 154-62, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/.
143. For a blog summary of the study, see http://traitstate.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/warm-water-and-loneliness/.
144. M. B. Donnellan, R. E. Lucas, and J. Cesario, “On the association between loneliness and bathing habits: Nine replications of Bargh and Shalev (2012) Study 1,” Emotion 15, no. 1 (2015): 109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036079.
145. The article can be downloaded freely from https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20 EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf.
146. Will Gervais, “More power!,” http://willgervais.com/blog/2014/3/5/more-power.
147. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers and B. U. Forstmann, “Rewarding high-power replication research,” Cortex 51, no. 10 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.09.010.
148. Sanjay Srivastava, “A Pottery Barn rule for scientific journals,” http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/a-pottery-barn-rule-for-scientific-journals/.
149. For details see: http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/an-accountable-replication-policy-at.html
150. Kimmo Eriksson and Brent Simpson, “Editorial decisions may perpetuate belief in invalid research findings,” PLOS ONE 8, no. 9 (2013): e73364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073364.
151. Keith R. Laws, “Negativland-a home for all findings in psychology,” BMC Psychology 1, no. 1 (2013): 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-2.
152. This example is based on a real case of a reported test for Alzheimer’s disease, critiqued by David Colquhoun: http://www.dcscience.net/?p =6473.
153. See also this animation at the Daily Mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20160206134529/http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/03/11/how-a-90-accurate-alzheimers-test-can-be-wrong-92-of-the-time/.
154. And for a technical overview, see http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/20.
155. Gerd Gigerenzer, “How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond ‘heuristics and biases,'" European Review of Social Psychology 2, no. 1 (1991): 83-115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033.
156. The article can be downloaded freely at http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_How _1991.pdf.
157. Zoltan Dienes, “Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 3 (2011): 274-90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406920
158. Zoltan Dienes, “Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results,” Frontiers in Psychology 5, no. 781 (2014): 1-17, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781.
159. Other excellent resources include Alexander Etz’s series of free and highly accessible blogposts, “Understanding Bayes”: http://alexanderetz.com/understanding-bayes/
160. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Richard D. Morey, and Michael D. Lee, “Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher,” https://osf.io/3tdh9/.
161. Dora Matzke, Sander Nieuwenhuis, Hedderik van Rijn, Heleen A. Slagter, Maurits W. van der Molen, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, “The effect of horizontal eye movements on free recall: A preregistered adversarial collaboration,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, no. 1 (2015): e1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000038.
162. Nature Neuroscience Editorial, “Raising standards,” http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v16/n5/full/nn.3391.html.
163. For details on the initiative at Psychological Science, see https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/psychological _science/ps-submissions#.
164. See also http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jul/09/case-report-forms-psychology-replication
165. For a summary of the Center for Open Science badges initiative, see https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/home/.
166. Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, “Time for a reproducibility index,” http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/ranking/dont/2013_04.lasso.
167. For the NIH data-sharing policy, see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih _data_sharing_policies.html.
168. For Science magazine’s requirements on data availability, see http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-editorial-policies#data-deposition.
169. For Earl Miller’s tweet, see https://twitter.com/MillerLabMIT/status/360368532774592512.
170. Uri Simonsohn, “Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone,” Psychological Science 24, no. 10 (2013): 1875-88, http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480366.
171. http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-losing-data-at-a-rapid-rate-1.14416#/b1.
172. Jelte M. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, “Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too?,” Intelligence 40, no. 2 (2012): 73-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.004.
173. Mark G. Stokes, Makoto Kusunoki, Natasha Sigala, Hamed Nili, David Gaffan, and John Duncan, “Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex,” Neuron 78, no. 2 (2013): 364-75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.039.
174. Gilles Dutilh, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Birte U. Forstmann, Emmanuel Keuleers, Marc Brysbaert, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, “Testing theories of post-error slowing,” Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 74, no. 2 (2012): 454-65, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0243-2.
175. Heather A. Piwowar and Todd J. Vision, “Data reuse and the open data citation advantage,” PeerJ 1 (2013): e175, http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175.
176. Heather A. Piwowar, Roger S. Day, and Douglas B. Fridsma, “Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate,” PLOS ONE 2, no. 3 (2007): e308, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308.
177. Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Judith Kats, and Dylan Molenaar, “The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis,” American Psychologist 61, no. 7 (2006): 726, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726.
178. The article can be freely downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20150420101309/http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/datasharing.pdf
179. http://memforms.apa.org/apa/cli/interest/ethics1.cfm#8_14.
180. Jelte M. Wicherts, Marjan Bakker, and Dylan Molenaar, “Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results,” PLOS ONE 6, no. 11 (2011): e26828, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026828.
181. Jelte Wicherts, personal interview via e-mail, 28 August 2014.
182. John A. Bargh and Idit Shalev, “The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life,” Emotion 12, no. 1 (2012): 154-62, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/.
183. Dan Simons, “Replication, retraction, and responsibility,” http://blog.dan simons.com/2014/01/replication-retraction-and.html.
184. American Psychological Association, 2010, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, section 8.14, http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf.
185. Brent Donnellan, “What’s the first rule about John Bargh’s data?,” http://traitstate.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/whats-the-first-rule-about-john-barghs-data/.
186. Dan Simons, “The fog of data-secrecy and science,” http://blog.dansimons.com/2012/09/the-fog-of-data-secrecy-and-science.html.
187. Ed Yong, “The data detective,” Nature News, 2 July 2012, http://www.nature.com/news/the-data-detective-1.10937
188. Ed Yong, “Uncertainty shrouds psychologist’s resignation,” Nature News, 12 July 2012, http://www.nature.com/news/uncertainty-shrouds-psychologist-s-resignation-1.10968.
189. J.B.S. Haldane, “The faking of genetical results,” Eureka 6 (1941), http://www.archim.org.uk/eureka/27/faking.html.
190. For the PLOS data availability policy, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.
191. Drug Monkey, “PLOS is letting the inmates run the asylum and this will kill them,” https://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/plos-is-letting-the-inmates-run-the-asylum-and-this-will-kill-them/.
192. rxnm, “PLOS’s open data fever dream,” https://rxnm.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/fan-fiction/
193. Erin C. McKiernan, “My concerns about PLOS’s new open data policy,” https://emckiernan.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/my-concerns-about-ploss-new-open-data-policy/.
194. Matthew D. MacManes, “Corner cases,” http://genomebio.org/corner-cases/.
195. See https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3381565.v1 for the analysis of the data.
196. Damian Pattinson, e-mail, 1 December 2015.
197. For guidelines at the journal Cognition, see http://www.elsevier.com/journals/cognition/0010-0277/guide-for-authors.
198. For Experimental Psychology, see https://us.hogrefe.com/products/journals/exppsy.
199. For Archives of Scientific Psychology, see http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc/.
200. Researchers are divided on the issue of whether providing data, alone, is a significant enough contribution to justify coauthoship. In May 2016 I posed this question to Twitter, https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/728709608471179268.
201. For details on the badges initiative, see http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/psychological_science/badges and https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/home/.
202. For further information, see http://centerforopenscience.org/top/.
203. See https://centerforopenscience.org/top/#list.
204. See http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/about-us/policies-and-standards/esrc-research-data-policy/.
205. For more information, see https://opennessinitiative.org/.
206. Frederick Verbruggen, personal interview via e-mail, 22 September 2014.
207. D. V. M. Bishop, “Open research practices: Unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them (commentary on the peer reviewers’ Openness Initiative),” Royal Society Open Science 3, no. 4 (2016): 160109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160109.
208. See also a provocative comment by Bishop and Stephan Lewandowsky, http://www.nature.com/news/research-integrity-don-t-let-transparency-damage-science-1.19219.
209. https://twitter.com/ImAlsoGreg/status/438179256284479488.
210. “Habits and open data: Helping students develop a theory of scientific mind,” http://bayesfactor.blogspot.no/2015/11/habits-and-open-data-helping-students.html.
211. Stephen Curry, personal interview via e-mail, 3 June 2014.
212. It can be freely downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20150325224546/https://errorstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/fakingscience-20141214.pdf.
213. Christopher J. Ferguson and Moritz Heene, “A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 6 (2012): 555-61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059.
214. The complete and final report of his fraud, published by the University of Tilburg, can be read here: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/3ff904d7-547b-40ae-85fe-bea38e05a34a_Final%20report%20Flawed%20Science.pdf.
215. For the interim report of the Stapel case, see http://web.archive.org/web/20160627142859/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf.
216. Kate Kelland, “Dutch psychologist admits he made up research data,” Reuters, 2 November 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-scientist-fraud-idUSTRE7A12PL20111102.
217. Number 1 in this unenviable ranking is anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, who since 2012 has had 183 papers retracted for data fabrication. For the full list, see http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/.
218. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/03/curtain-up-on-second-act-for-dutch-fraudster-stapel-college-teacher/#comment-31309.
219. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/03/curtain-up-on-second-act-for-dutch-fraudster-stapel-college-teacher/#comment-31388.
220. The report rather damningly notes, “Suspicions about data provided by Mr Stapel had also arisen among fellow full professors on two occasions in the past year. These suspicions were not followed up. The Committee concludes that the three young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors” (46), https://www.tilburg university.edu/upload/3ff904d7-547b-40ae-85fe-bea38e05a34a_Final%20report%20Flawed%20Science.pdf.
221. Daniele Fanelli, “How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data,” PLOS ONE 4, no. 5 (2009): e5738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
222. Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec, “Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling,” Psychological Science (2012): 0956797611430953, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
223. Chris Chambers, “Tackling the F Word,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160316092653/http://www.scilogs.com/sifting_the_evidence/tackling-the-f-word/.
224. For the initial report on the Smeesters case, see http://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/press/2012/Juli/report_Committee_for_inquiry_prof._Smeesters.publicversion.28_6_2012.pdf.
225. Rolf Zwaan, personal interview via e-mail, 28 August 2015.
226. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/19/final-report-in-smeesters-case-serves-up-seven-retractions/.
227. “Hoogleraar Erasmus ontkent fraude,” http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2844322/hoogleraar-erasmus-ontkent-fraude.html.
228. See http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3381574.v1.
229. For the 2012 internal report written by the whistle-blower in the Förster case, see https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/report _foerster.pdf.
230. Bruce S. Weir, “The rarity of DNA profiles,” Annals of Applied Statistics 1, no. 2 (2007): 358, http://dx.doi.org/10.1214%2F07-AOAS128.
231. For the English translation of the LOWI report, see https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/translation_lowi.pdf.
232. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/02/forster-on-defense-again-this-time-weighing-in-on-timeline-controversy/.
233. http://retraction watch.com/2014/05/12/i-never-manipulated-data-forster-defends-actions-in-open-letter/.
234. “Social psychologist Förster denies misconduct, calls charge ‘terrible misjudgment,'" http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/30/social-psychologist-forster-denies-misconduct-calls-charge-terrible-misjudgment/.
235. "‘I never manipulated data’: Förster defends actions in open letter,” http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/12/i-never-manipulated-data-forster-defends-actions-in-open-letter/.
236. http://www.socolab.de/main.php?id =66.
237. For additional summaries of the Förster affair, see http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/05/29/forster-case/
238. Data Colada investigation, http://datacolada.org/2014/05/08/21-fake-data-colada/.
239. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/643671007090339840.
240. In November 2015, Förster agreed to retract two additional articles: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/12/psychologist-jens-forster-settles-case-by-agreeing-to-2-retractions/.
241. In 2013, the New York Times published an interview with Stapel in which the headline described his fraud as “audacious”-a synonym for “brave” and “daring." The headline was later changed to remove the term. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html.
242. The full retraction notice can be read here: http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/2015.full.
243. “Fraud topples second neuroscience word processing paper,” http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/13/fraud-topples-second-neuroscience-word-processing-paper/.
244. See http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/1/280.full.
245. http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20130816_00694853.
246. https://web.archive.org/web/20150907031741/https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-savine-adam-c.
247. http://ccpweb.wustl.edu/ORIresponse.html#13.
248. “You learned of the outcome of Adam’s case before I did, which I am pretty upset about-given that I was the one to report him in the first place." http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/washington-u-student-s-mentor-talks-about-discredited-research/article_e2275d60-1ead-5906-851a-59c7a4daf6e5.html.
249. http://ccpweb.wustl.edu//ORIresponse.html.
250. Todd Braver, personal interview via e-mail, 24 August 2015.
251. The society’s full ethical policy can be found at https://www.sfn.org/member-center/professional-conduct/sfn-ethics-policy.
252. http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/washington-u-student-s-mentor-talks-about-discredited-research/article_e2275d60-1ead-5906-851a-59c7a4daf6e5.html.
253. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read.
254. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license.
255. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/.
256. Chris Chambers, “Those who publish research behind paywalls are victims not perpetrators,” http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/23/open-access-publish-paywalls-victims-perpetrators.
257. ArXiv was launched in 1991 and now receives more than 8,000 submissions per month, http://arxiv.org/.
258. Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, “Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 291, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
259. For an impassioned argument on the morality of barrier-based publishing, see this Guardian blogpost by Mike Taylor: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/17/open-access-publishing-science-paywall-immoral.
260. For a damning analysis of this policy as launched at Queen Mary University London, the reader is directed to David Colquhoun’s post, http://www.dcscience.net/2012/06/29/is-queen-mary-university-of-london-trying-to-commit-scientific-suicide/.
261. http://www.nature.com/news/funders-punish-open-access-dodgers-1.15007.
262. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Managing-a-grant/End-of-a-grant/wtx026513.htm.
263. http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analysis-of-wellcome-trust-open-access-spend-2013-14/.
264. http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/10/22/10-years-of-open-access-at-the-wellcome-trust-in-10-numbers/.
265. The Finch Report: Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications, 5. Available for free download at http://web.archive.org/web/20160322075144/http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf.
266. Harnad’s full comment can be read at https://web.archive.org/web/20160418152013/http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/904-Finch-Report,-a-Trojan-Horse,-Serves-Publishing-Industry-Interests-Instead-of-UK-Research-Interests.html.
267. Stevan Harnad has referred to this double-dipping model as “fool’s gold OA”: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1007-Pre-Green-OA-Fools-Gold-vs.-Post-Green-OA-Fair-Gold.html.
268. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/policy/.
269. “From ‘as soon as possible’ to ‘immediate’ open access,” http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html
270. “Open access in the next Research Excellence Framework: policy adjustments and qualifications,” http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2015/CL,202015/Print-friendly%20version.pdf.
271. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf.
272. Andrea Kuszewski’s tweet from 2011 that started the #icanhazpdf phenomenon: https://twitter.com/AndreaKuszewski/status/28257118322688000.
273. Carolyn Caffrey Gardner and Gabriel J. Gardner, “Bypassing interlibrary loan via twitter: An exploration of# icanhazpdf requests,” ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) (2015), http://web.archive.org/web/20160702052610/http://eprints.rclis.org/24847/2/gardner.pdf.
274. At the time of writing, Sci-Hub could be found under several domains, including http://sci-hub.tw/and http://sci-hub.cc/.
275. "(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
276. “Sci-Hub tears down academia’s ‘illegal’ copyright paywalls,” https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-tears-down-academias-illegal-copyright-paywalls-150627/.
277. In 2014, Elsevier-which is the largest publisher of academic journals-was reported to return a 37 percent profit margin, equating to over $US1 billion, http://web.archive.org/web/20160315064211/https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/publishers-and-the-mit-faculty-open-access-policy/elsevier-fact-sheet/.
278. The full complaint from Elsevier can be read here: https://torrentfreak.com/images/elsevier-complaint.pdf.
279. “Court orders shutdown of Libgen, Bookfi and Sci-Hub,” https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-shutdown-of-libgen-bookfi-and-sci-hub-151102/.
280. “Sci-Hub, BookFi and LibGen resurface after being shut down,” https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-and-libgen-resurface-after-being-shut-down-151121/.
281. For details of the indictment against Swartz, see http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf.
282. The poorest institutions and countries are somewhat protected from this problem. Several major publishers participate in the Research4Life program, which at the time of writing offers free journal access to 72 “Group A” countries in the developing world, http://www.research4life.org/eligibility/.
283. In one of many such examples, Ross Mounce, a postdoctoral researcher at the Natural History Museum in London, recounts his experience of discovering that the University of Bath cut its subscription to the popular Royal Society journal, Biology Letters, http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/02/12/journal-mega-bundles-thecostofknowledge/.
284. Theodore C. Bergstrom, Paul N. Courant, R. Preston McAfee, and Michael A. Williams, “Evaluating big deal journal bundles,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111, no. 26 (2014): 9425-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403006111.
285. In 2015, Mounce conducted a poll on social media to discover how many leading universities could access a randomly selected article from 1949-an article that was, in theory, available electronically. Of 70 institutions in the UK and North America, just 10 reported that they could successfully download the article: http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/09/16/who-actually-has-access-to-paywalled-research/.
286. David Halpern, “Presidential column: Applying psychology to public policy,” http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/january-14/applying-psychology-to-public-policy.html.
287. http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/.
288. “Executive order-using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american.
289. POST is an in-house group of civil servants that provides independent, indepth scientific briefings called POSTNotes to members of Parliament, http://www.parliament.uk/post.
290. Adriana De Palma, “Why all PhD students should do a policy placement,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160601081827/https://therostrumblog.word press.com/2015/01/12/why-all-phd-students-should-do-a-policy-placement/.
291. https://twitter.com/stevenhill/status/670645979167748100.
292. https://twitter.com/ersatzben/status/670939925106302977.
293. https://twitter.com/ersatzben/status/613782419011989504.
294. Ben Johnson, “Subscription publishers do not want my business,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160409024908/https://ersatzben.com/2015/06/20/subscription-publishers-do-not-want-my-business/.
295. A similar case was documented by former BMJ editor Richard Smith, http://web.archive.org/web/20160414122448/http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/06/28/richard-smith-a-bad-bad-week-for-access/.
296. Chris Hartgerink, “Why I content mine,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160612071438/http://onsnetwork.org/chartgerink/2015/11/19/why-i-content-mine/.
297. Chris Hartgerink, “Elsevier stopped me doing my research,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160611032746/http://onsnetwork.org/chartgerink/2015/11/16/elsevier-stopped-me-doing-my-research/.
298. http://web.archive.org/web/20160611032746/http://onsnetwork.org/chart gerink/2015/11/16/elsevier-stopped-me-doing-my-research/#comment-11.
299. Chris Shillum, “Elsevier updates text-mining policy to improve access for re searchers,” http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-text-mining-policy-to-improve-access-for-researchers.
300. Chris Hartgerink, “Why Elsevier’s ‘solution’ is the problem,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160611010128/http://onsnetwork.org/chartgerink/2015/11/20/why-elseviers-solution-is-the-problem/.
301. The full memo is no longer available from Harvard University but can be read at http://web.archive.org/web/20160317160330/http://gantercourses.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Faculty-Advisory-Council-Memorandum-on-Journal-Pricing-%C2%A7-THE-HARVARD-LIBRARY.pdf.
302. https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/.
303. “Dutch universities start their Elsevier boycott plan,” https://universonline.nl/2015/07/02/dutch-universities-start-their-elsevier-boycott-plan.
304. Daniel Allington, “On open access, and why it’s not the answer,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160402004400/http://www.danielallington.net/2013/10/open-access-why-not-answer/.
305. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity.
306. For an excellent overview of the benefits of open access publishing to those outside academia, see http://whoneedsaccess.org/.
307. John Bargh, “Nothing in their heads,” http://web.archive.org/web/20120309203900/http://psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201203/nothing-in-their-heads.
308. Stéphane Doyen, Olivier Klein, Cora-Lise Pichon, and Axel Cleeremans, “Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind?,” PLOS ONE 7, no. 1 (2012): e29081, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081.
309. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication.
310. Bohannon’s report can read freely at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.
311. https://doaj.org/.
312. Michael Eisen, “I confess, I wrote the arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals,” http://web.archive.org/web/20160508112019/http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p =1439.
313. C. Hajjem, Y. Gingras, and S. Harnad, “Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact,” Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering 28 no. 4 (2005): 39-46, http://sites.computer.org/debull/A05dec/hajjem.pdf.
314. For details, see http://sparceurope.org/oaca/.
315. Jonathan P. Tennant, François Waldner, Damien C. Jacques, Paola Masuzzo, Lauren B. Collister, and Chris H. J. Hartgerink, “The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review,” F1000Research 5 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.8460.2.
316. Goodhart’s law is named after the economist Charles Goodhart, although the formulation quoted here has been attributed to anthropologist Marilyn Strathern. http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/papers/LHCE/goodhart.html.
317. Eugene Garfield, “Citation indexes for science,” Science 122 (1955): 108-11, http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/science_v122v3159p108y1955.html.
318. Editorial: Scientometrics 1, no. 1 (1978): 3-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02016836.
319. E. Garfield, “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,” JAMA 295 no. 1 (2006): 90-93. The article can be freely accessed here: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jamajif2006.pdf.
320. Robert Adler, John Ewing, and Peter Taylor, “Joint committee on quantitative assessment of research: Citation statistics,” Australian Mathematical Society Gazette 35, no. 3 (2008): 166-88, http://www.austms.org.au/Gazette/2008/Jul08/Gazette35%283%29Web.pdf#page =24.
321. Per O. Seglen, “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research,” BMJ: British Medical Journal 314, no. 7079 (1997): 498, which showed no correlation between JIF and citation rate, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126010/pdf/9056804.pdf.
322. George A. Lozano, Vincent Larivière, and Yves Gingras, “The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, no. 11 (2012): 2140-45, which found a low correlation that is diminishing over time, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22731.
323. This article can be freely downloaded from http://www.ost.uqam.ca/Portals/0/docs/articles/2012/JASISTno11.pdf.
324. Ferric C. Fang, R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall, “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109, no. 42 (2012): 17028-33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
325. See also a summary of this and other problems with JIF on Björn Bremb’s blog: http://blogarchive.brembs.net/news.php?item.766.11.
326. See PLOS Medicine editors, “The impact factor game,” PLOS Med 3, no. 6 (2006): e291, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.
327. Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, “Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 291, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
328. Eugene Garfield, “Interview with Eugene Garfield, chairman emeritus of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI),” Cortex 37, no. 4 (2001): 575-77. The article can be freely accessed at http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/cortex37%284%292001.pdf.
329. http://www.ascb.org/dora/. The Association of Dutch Universities, of which the University of Maastricht is a member, is organizational signatory 561.
330. Brembs, Button, and Munafò, “Deep impact,” 291, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
331. Stephen Curry, “Sick of impact factors,” http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/.
332. Henry L. Roediger III, “Journal impact factors: How much should we care?,” http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/september-13/journal-impact-factors.html.
333. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/psychological-science-package/journal201991.
334. https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/657221745628200960.
335. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/proms/SnrProm_AnnexA.doc.
336. In the event of this link being taken down, an archived copy can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20160516082534/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/proms/SnrProm_AnnexA.doc.
337. For a recent example of how the Times Higher Education reinforces the idea that grants are prizes, see https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/grant-winners-3-december-2015.
338. Dorothy Bishop has delivered a blistering attack on the absurdity of evaluating scientists based on their grant income: http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/why-evaluating-scientists-by-grant.html.
339. In general there is very little assessment of whether grants awarded to psychologists are well spent. One exception is the UK Economic and Social Research Council’s rapporteur program, which asks reviewers to assess the “scientific, economic and societal impact” of outputs stemming from awarded grants, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/guidance-notes-on-the-rapporteur-quality-and-impact-comment-form/.
340. Results of Twitter polls should be viewed with caution-this was not a properly sampled survey and the background of the respondents is unknown, https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/677829444103442432.
341. UCL pharmacologist David Colquhoun has doggedly investigated and exposed these cases. http://www.dcscience.net/2012/06/29/is-queen-mary-university-of-london-trying-to-commit-scientific-suicide/.
342. David Colquhoun, “Bad financial management at Kings College London means VC Rick Trainor is firing 120 scientists,” http://www.dcscience.net/2014/06/07/bad-financial-management-at-kings-college-london-means-vc-rick-trainor-is-firing-120-scientists/.
343. John F. Allen and Fanis Missirlis, “Queen Mary: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition,” Lancet 379, no. 9828 (2012): 1785, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960697-7/fulltext.
344. The COPE guidelines can be freely read at http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011_0.pdf.
345. For the American Psychological Association’s guidelines on authorship, see http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/publication/.
346. For the ICMJE guidelines on authorship, see http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
347. My article, entitled “Tough love II: 25 tips for early-career scientists”: http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tough-love-ii-25-point-guide-for-early.html.
348. Dorothy Bishop’s well-aimed critique of my post can be read here: http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tough-love-ii-25-point-guide-for-early.html?showComment =1338490130354#c1743257197227672347.
349. My rather weak response to Dorothy: http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tough-love-ii-25-point-guide-for-early.html?showComment =1338498718060#c5457911252285746290.
350. Uta Frith’s manifesto for slow science is pure wisdom. See http://frithmind.org/socialminds/2015/10/11/slow-science/.
351. For a discussion of wider reproducibility problems in biomedicine, see the 2015 report issued by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences: http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/policy/policy-projects/reproducibility-and-reliability-of-biomedical-research/.
352. Chris Chambers, “Are we finally getting serious about fixing science?,” http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/oct/29/are-we-finally-getting-serious-about-fixing-science
353. Christopher D. Chambers, Eva Feredoes, Suresh Daniel Muthukumaraswamy, and Peter Etchells, “Instead of ‘playing the game’ it is time to change the rules: Registered reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond,” AIMS Neuroscience 1, no. 1 (2014): 4-17. This article can freely downloaded from http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4/pdf.
354. Chris Chambers, “Why I will no longer review or publish for the journal Neuropsychologia,” http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/why-i-will-no-longer-review-or-publish.html.
355. Neuroskeptic, “Fixing science-systems and politics,” http://blogs.discover magazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/04/14/fixing-science-systems-and-politics/.
356. R. Rosenthal, Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1966).
357. G. William Walster and T. Anne Cleary, “A proposal for a new editorial policy in the social sciences,” American Statistician 24, no. 2 (1970): 16-19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884.
358. Robert G. Newcombe, “Towards a reduction in publication bias,” BMJ 295, no. 6599 (1987): 656-59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656, freely available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257777/pdf/bmjcred00037-0042.pdf
359. Erick H. Turner, “Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: Causes and solutions,” CNS Drugs 27, no. 6 (2013): 457-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9.
360. For my original open letter to Cortex, see http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/changing-culture-of-scientific.html.
361. Neuroskeptic, “Fixing science-systems and politics,” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/04/14/fixing-science-systems-and-politics/
362. For an example of Registered Reports guidelines in full, the reader is directed to the Cortex format: http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%20Guidelines_RR_29_04_2013.pdf.
363. “Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration,” http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration.
364. The main opposition to Registered Reports is exemplified in this response to our Guardian article by Sophie Scott, professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/pre-registration-would-put-science-in-chains/2005954.article.
365. For a collection of mostly negative reactions assembled by Scott, see also https://sites.google.com/site/speechskscott/SpeakingOut/willpre-registrationofstudiesbegoodforpsychology.
366. Since February 2014, the Open Scoop Challenge has remained standing and unclaimed: http://software-carpentry.org/blog/2014/02/open-scoop-challenge.html.
367. See https://sites.google.com/site/speechskscott/SpeakingOut/willpre-registra tionofstudiesbegoodforpsychology.
368. See http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/changing-culture-of-scientific.html?showComment =1349772625668#c5836301548034236209.
369. See https://sites.google.com/site/speechskscott/SpeakingOut/willpre-registra tionofstudiesbegoodforpsychology.
370. Some opponents of preregistration suggested that we should have preregistered the Registered Reports initiative (e.g., https://nucambiguous.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/preregistration-a-boring-ass-word-for-a-very-important-proposal/#comment-540).
371. Loren K. Mell and Anthony L. Zietman, “Introducing prospective manuscript review to address publication bias,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 90, no. 4 (2014): 729-732, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.052.
372. Robert M. Kaplan and Veronica L. Irvin, “Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time,” PLOS ONE 10, no. 8 (2015): e0132382, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382.
373. Jona Sassenhagen and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, “The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation,” Cortex 66 (2015): A3-A20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.12.019
374. Tim Paris, Jeesun Kim, and Chris Davis, “Using EEG and stimulus context to probe the modelling of auditory-visual speech,” Cortex (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.010.
375. These and more are showcased in a virtual special issue of Registered Reports at Cortex: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cortex/virtual-special-issues/virtual-special-issue-registered-reports.
376. See also the special issue on Registered Reports of replications in Social Psychology: http://econtent.hogrefe.com/toc/zsp/45/3.
377. For a full list of currently participating journals and guidelines, see https://cos.io/rr/.
378. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/policy/policy-projects/reproducibility-and-reliability-of-biomedical-research/.
379. For more information on the TOP guidelines, see https://cos.io/top/.
380. I am the current handling editor for Registered Reports at Royal Society Open Science, https://blogs.royalsociety.org/publishing/registered-reports/.
381. Leif Nelson, “Preregistration: Not just for the empiro-zealots,” http://datacolada.org/12.
382. Sylvain Mathieu, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, Douglas G. Altman, and Philippe Ravaud, “Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials,” JAMA 302, no. 9 (2009): 977-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1242.
383. Sreeram Ramagopalan, Andrew P. Skingsley, Lahiru Handunnetthi, Michelle Klingel, Daniel Magnus, Julia Pakpoor, and Ben Goldacre, “Prevalence of primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional study,” F1000Research 3 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.3784.1.
384. Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, Andrew P. Skingsley, Lahiru Handunnetthi, Daniel Magnus, Michelle Klingel, Julia Pakpoor, and Ben Goldacre, “Funding source and primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are associated with the reporting of a statistically significant primary outcome: A cross-sectional study,” F1000Research 4 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.6312.2
385. http://compare-trials.org/#.
386. Annie Franco, Neil Malhotra, and Gabor Simonovits, “Underreporting in psychology experiments: Evidence from a study registry,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 7, no. 1 (2016): 8-12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550615598377.
387. The use of standardized templates could help increase the precision of unreviewed preregistration. A new tool developed by Uri Simonsohn and Joe Simmons shows promise in this regard: https://aspredicted.org/.
388. Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, “Time for a reproducibility index,” http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/ranking/dont/2013_04.lasso.
389. A complementary idea for a “Replication Tracker” has been proposed by Josh Hartshorne and Adena Schachner, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00008.
390. For details, see http://www.iupsys.net/about/members/national-members/index.html.
391. One avenue for producing a Reproducibility Index could be to develop it conjunction with the Curate Science project led by Etienne LeBel, http://curatescience.org/.
392. This impressive new initiative tracks the replicability of published results. For an introduction, see http://replicationnetwork.com/2015/10/21/lebel-introducing-curatescience-org/
393. Leonard P. Freedman, Iain M. Cockburn, and Timothy S. Simcoe, “The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research,” PLOS Biol 13, no. 6 (2015): e1002165, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165.
394. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” Science 349, no. 6251 (2015): aac4716, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
395. Alex Etz has provided a Bayesian analysis of these results; he finds that about 20 percent of the attempted replications provided strong evidence for a replication failure and 25 percent provided strong evidence for replication success, with the remainder occupying a middle ground of moderate or inconclusive evidence either way: https://alexanderetz.com/2015/08/30/the-bayesian-reproducibility-project/
396. Alexander Etz and Joachim Vandekerckhove, “A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology,” PLOS ONE 11, no. 2 (2016): e0149794, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149794.
397. Kevin M. Williams, Craig Nathanson, and Delroy L. Paulhus, “Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16, no. 3 (2010): 293, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020773.
398. The article can be freely read at https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xap163293.pdf.
399. “Diederik Stapel settles with Dutch prosecutors, won’t face jail time,” http://retractionwatch.com/2013/06/28/diederik-stapel-settles-with-dutch-prosectors-wont-face-jail-time/.
400. “Former University of Queensland professor Bruce Murdoch charged over alleged fake Parkinson’s research,” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476.
401. Dea Clark, “Former UQ academic Dr Caroline Barwood granted bail over fraud charges,” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-06/former-uq-academic-granted-bail-over-fraud-charges/5871436.
402. Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner, “Replication is the only solution to scientific fraud,” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/solution-scientific-fraud-replication.
403. For a list of RoMEO green journals, see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?colour =green.
404. Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, “Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 291, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
405. Sam Schwarzkopf, “Revolutionise the publication process,” http://neuroneurotic.net/2015/07/17/revolutionise-the-publication-process/
406. Dorothy Bishop, “Will traditional science journal disappear?,” http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/may/12/will-traditional-science-journals-disappear.
407. Another related idea is the Episciences project, which preserves the journal model but seeks to conduct peer review and publishing entirely within so-called overlay journals that operate alongside open archives such as arXiv. See http://www.episciences.org/.
408. Amy Brand, Liz Allen, Micah Altman, Marjorie Hlava, and Jo Scott, “Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit,” Learned Publishing 28, no. 2 (2015): 151-55, which can be freely downloaded from http://openscholar.mit.edu/sites/default/files/dept/files/lpub28-2_151-155.pdf.
409. https://twitter.com/david_colquhoun/status/664949963890278400.
410. Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, “A 21 word solution,” available at SSRN 2160588 (2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2160588.
411. See http://opennessinitiative.org/.
412. See www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/.
413. In addition to the data partner scheme proposed by Richard and Candice Morey in chapter 4 (see http://bayesfactor.blogspot.no/2015/11/habits-and-open-data-helping-students.html)
414. Kia Nobre’s lab at the University of Oxford has recently proposed a similar “frenemy system,” https://sites.google.com/site/todorovicana/musings/crisis_report.
415. http://www.ascb.org/dora/.
416. For details about the TOP guidelines, see https://cos.io/top/.
417. For details about Registered Reports, see https://cos.io/rr/.
418. For details about the Badges initiative, see https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/home/.