A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences
Abstract
“… there's this desert prison, see, with an old prisoner, resigned to his life, and a young one just arrived. The young one talks constantly of escape, and, after a few months, he makes a break. He's gone a week, and then he's brought back by the guards. He's half dead, crazy with hunger and thirst. He describes how awful it was to the old prisoner. The endless stretches of sand, no oasis, no signs of life anywhere. The old prisoner listens for a while, then says, ‘Yep. I know. I tried to escape myself, twenty years ago.’ The young prisoner says, ‘You did? Why didn't you tell me, all these months I was planning my escape? Why didn't you let me know it was impossible?’ And the old prisoner shrugs, and says, ‘So who publishes negative results?’” (Hudson, 1968, p. 168)
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?
Preregistration is not necessary to undertake results-blind peer review.
“preregistration is not necessary to undertake results-blind peer review (Locascio, 2017; Walster & Cleary, 1970).”
From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Walster & Cleary, 1970
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 144
- Authors
- Walster, G. W., & Cleary, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- The American Statistician
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1970-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 16-19
- ISSN
- 0003-1305 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2731
- OpenAlex
- W2061131246
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 38.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Statistician (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- editorial policy, negative results, social sciences, scholarly publishing
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
