A 21 Word Solution
Open accessAbstract
One year after publishing "False-Positive Psychology," we propose a simple implementation of disclosure that requires but 21 words to achieve full transparency. This article is written in a casual tone. It includes phone-taken pictures of milk-jars and references to ice-cream and sardines.
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?
Researchers can confirm the absence of p-hacking in their research reports through contemporary transparency practices such as actively affirming disclosure of data collection stopping rule, data exclusions, measures, and manipulations; providing logical and principled justifications for nonstandard data exclusions and analytical approaches; providing public access to standard data analysis and to
“researchers can confirm the absence of p -hacking in their research reports by (a) actively affirming the disclosure of their data collection stopping rule, data exclusions, measures, and manipulations (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012), (b) providing logical and principled justifications for nonstandard data exclusions and analytical approaches (Giner-Sorolla, 2012, p. 568), (c) providing”
From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 680
- Authors
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Esade (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Simonsohn, Uri
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1603366607
- Cited by
- 680
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 23
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- disclosure, transparency, research integrity
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
