CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 571Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsAcademic Writing and Publishing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?

Open access
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards·2008·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839PMC PMC2957094
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In anticipation of the impending revision of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, APA's Publications and Communications Board formed the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) and charged it to provide the board with background and recommendations on information that should be included in manuscripts submitted to APA journals that report (a) new data collections and (b) meta-analyses. The JARS Group reviewed efforts in related fields to develop standards and sought input from other knowledgeable groups. The resulting recommendations contain (a) standards for all journal articles, (b) more specific standards for reports of studies with experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions using research designs involving random or nonrandom assignment, and (c) standards for articles reporting meta-analyses. The JARS Group anticipated that standards for reporting other research designs (e.g., observational studies, longitudinal studies) would emerge over time. This report also (a) examines societal developments that have encouraged researchers to provide more details when reporting their studies, (b) notes important differences between requirements, standards, and recommendations for reporting, and (c) examines benefits and obstacles to the development and implementation of reporting standards.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Psychological Association, Council of Editors 1952 Publication manual of the American Psychological Association Psychological Bulletin 49 Suppl, Pt 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–571 of 571

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards
Corresponding author
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008-12
Volume
63
Issue
9
Pages
839-851
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839
PMC
PMC2957094
OpenAlex
W2444484626
Cited by
571
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 24
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD048962)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
reporting guidelines, research reporting, APA Publication Manual, meta-analysis reporting, intervention evaluation, random assignment, research transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Psychology, Publishing, Research Design, Societies, Scientific, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review