Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

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

1 Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University;
2 School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading;
3 School of Society, Enterprise and Environment, Bath Spa University

  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

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. Chambers 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 α-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.    

Copyright Info: © 2014, Christopher D. Chambers, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved