Introduction to the special section on increasing replicability, transparency, and openness in clinical psychology
Open accessAbstract
As psychological research comes under increasing fire for the crisis of replicability, attention has turned to methods and practices that facilitate (or hinder) a more replicable and veridical body of empirical evidence. These trends have focused on open science initiatives, including an emphasis on replication, transparency, and data sharing. Despite this broader movement in psychology, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have been largely absent from the broader conversation on documenting the extent of existing problems as well as generating solutions to problematic methods and practices in our area (Tackett et al., 2017). The goal of the current special section was to bring together psychopathology researchers to explore these and related areas as they pertain to the types of research conducted in clinical psychology and allied disciplines. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Such problematic practices are common in clinical science.
“Such practices are common in clinical science as well (Tackett & Miller, 2019)”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes and Mediation: Challenges and How to Address Them (2023) · cites this paper as Tackett & Miller, 2019
Questionable research practices are numerous in the larger literature and are more likely in studies that are not preregistered or based on prepublished protocols.
“Examples of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the larger literature are numerous, and these practices are more likely to be used in studies that are not preregistered or based on prepublished protocols (Tackett & Miller, 2019).”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes and Mediation: Challenges and How to Address Them (2023) · cites this paper as Tackett & Miller, 2019
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Tackett, J. L., & Miller, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 487-492
- ISSN
- 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1846
- OpenAlex
- W2966325323
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- replicability, open science, transparency, data sharing, replication, clinical psychology research, research integrity
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Psychology, Clinical
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