Cited by 32Research Data Management PracticesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Introduction to the special section on increasing replicability, transparency, and openness in clinical psychology

Open access
Tackett, Jennifer L., Miller, Joshua D.·2019·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1037/abn0000455

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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)”
  • 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).”

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
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