The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 3 are not checked yet.
Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond
Open accessAbstract
The last ten years have witnessed increasing awareness of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the life sciences [1,2], including p-hacking [3], HARKing [4], lack of replication [5], publication bias [6], low statistical power [7] and lack of data sharing ([8]; see Figure 1). Concerns about such behaviours have been raised repeatedly for over half a century [9–11] but the incentive structure of academia has not changed to address them. \nDespite the complex motivations that drive academia, many QRPs stem from the simple fact that the incentives which offer success to individual scientists conflict with what is best for science [12]. On the one hand are a set of gold standards that centuries of the scientific method have proven to be crucial for discovery: rigour, reproducibility, and transparency. On the other hand are a set of opposing principles born out of the academic career model: the drive to produce novel and striking results, the importance of confirming prior expectations, and the need to protect research interests from competitors. Within a culture that pressures scientists to produce rather than discover, the outcome is a biased and impoverished science in which most published results are either unconfirmed genuine discoveries or unchallenged fallacies [13]. This observation implies no moral judgement of scientists, who are as much victims of this system as they are perpetrators.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Akin to the approach taken for clinical trials, protocol registration has emerged as a mechanism that is likely to improve the transparency of animal research [232,237,238].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [237]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, in the Registered Report format offered by an increasing number of journals, protocols undergo peer review, and if accepted, the journal commits to publishing the completed research regardless of the results obtained [237].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [237]
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
Cook, R. J., Dickens, B. M., & Fathalla, M. F. (2003) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199241323.003.0025 · Cited by 10,825
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.225 · Cited by 3,688
A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194105 · Cited by 2,490
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239
HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known
Kerr, N. L. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 · Cited by 1,989
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Genome-wide association studies
Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., & Posthuma, D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00056-9 · Cited by 1,849
Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., Vul, E., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.167 · Cited by 1,410
Indices of Effect Existence and Significance in the Bayesian Framework
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Chen, S. H. A., & Lüdecke, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767 · Cited by 983
Itay Goldstein, B., Jiang, W., & Karolyi, G. A. (2019) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz025 · Cited by 709
Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019Preprint
du Sert, N. P., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/703355 · Cited by 557
Hong, H. G., Karolyi, G. A., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2019) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz146 · Cited by 550
Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research
Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. A. (2018) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20171350 · Cited by 484
Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template
Veer, A. V. '., & Giner‐Sorolla, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004 · Cited by 464
How Bayes factors change scientific practice
Dienes, Z. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.003 · Cited by 365
The psycho Package: an Efficient and Publishing-Oriented Workflow for Psychological Science
Makowski, D. (2018) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.00470 · Cited by 430
Improving inferences about null effects with Bayes factors and equivalence tests.
Lakens, D., McLatchie, N., Isager, P. M., Scheel, A. M., & Dienes, Z. (2020) · The Journals of Gerontology: Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gby065 · Cited by 279
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tennant, J., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., et al. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.1 · Cited by 299
Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic
Besançon, L., Peiffer‐Smadja, N., Ségalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Billy, E., Déforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y · Cited by 326
Mindfulness and acceptance approaches to sporting performance enhancement: a systematic review.
Noetel, M., Ciarrochi, J., Van Zanden, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2019) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2017.1387803 · Cited by 282
An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research
Errington, T. M., Iorns, E., Gunn, W., Tan, F. E., Lomax, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2014) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.04333 · Cited by 312
On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations
Lakens, D., Hilgard, J., & Staaks, J. P. C. (2016) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3 · Cited by 238
Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration
Hardwicke, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2 · Cited by 205
The changing forms and expectations of peer review
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (. W. (2018) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5 · Cited by 179
The Practical Alternative to the p Value Is the Correctly Used p Value
Lakens, D. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620958012 · Cited by 181
A Practical Guide for Improving Transparency and Reproducibility in Neuroimaging Research
Gorgolewski, K. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002506 · Cited by 158
Seven Easy Steps to Open Science
Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J. B., Etz, A. J., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A. C., Parsons, S. D., & Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, M. (2019) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000387 · Cited by 186
Mapping the universe of registered reports
Hardwicke, T. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y · Cited by 155
Fields, E. C., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2019) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13468 · Cited by 153
Strengthening the Practice of Exercise and Sport-Science Research
Halperin, I., Vigotsky, A. D., Foster, C., & Pyne, D. B. (2017) · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0322 · Cited by 147
Promoting Open Science to Increase the Trustworthiness of Evidence in Special Education
Adelson, J. L., Barton, E., Bradshaw, C., Nosek, B. A., Bryant, D., Cook, B. G., Coyne, M., DeBettencourt, L., DeHaven, A. C., Dymond, S., et al. (2018) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/0014402918793138 · Cited by 136
Analysis of Open Data and Computational Reproducibility in Registered Reports in Psychology
Obels, P., Lakens, D., Coles, N. A., Gottfried, J., & Green, S. A. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245920918872 · Cited by 127
Rejection odds and rejection ratios: A proposal for statistical practice in testing hypotheses
Bayarri, M. J., Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., & Sellke, T. M. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.12.007 · Cited by 126
Current Research and Statistical Practices in Sport Science and a Need for Change
Bernards, J., Sato, K., Haff, G., & Bazyler, C. (2017) · Sports · doi:10.3390/sports5040087 · Cited by 120
Both Questionable and Open Research Practices Are Prevalent in Education Research
Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G., & Plucker, J. A. (2021) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x211001356 · Cited by 97
Methods for Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB): A Systematic Review and Guidelines
Lalanza, J. F., Lorente, S., Bullich, R., García, C., Losilla, J.-M., & Capdevila, L. (2023) · Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback · doi:10.1007/s10484-023-09582-6 · Cited by 111
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., Martone, M. E., Bergstrom, H. C., Bespalov, A., & Graf, C. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.24340 · Cited by 83
Mega‐analysis methods in ENIGMA : The experience of the generalized anxiety disorder working group
Zugman, A., Harrewijn, A., Cardinale, E. M., Zwiebel, H., Freitag, G. F., Werwath, K. E., Bas‐Hoogendam, J. M., Groenewold, N. A., Aghajani, M., Hilbert, K., et al. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25096 · Cited by 83
Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science
Pham, M. T., & Oh, T. T. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1209 · Cited by 91
Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science
Aguinis, H., Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., & Cascio, W. F. (2020) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007 · Cited by 90
Mitigating Illusory Results through Preregistration in Education
Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2017) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2017.1387950 · Cited by 82
The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2 · Cited by 73
The aura of charisma: A review on the embodiment perspective as signaling
Reh, S., Quaquebeke, N. V., & Giessner, S. R. (2017) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.001 · Cited by 77
Standard Operating Procedures: A Safety Net for Pre-Analysis Plans
Lin, W., & Green, D. P. (2016) · Political Science and Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096516000810 · Cited by 71
Turner, E. H., Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., & de Vries, Y. A. (2022) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886 · Cited by 68
Matthes, J., Marquart, F., Naderer, B., Arendt, F., Schmuck, D., & Adam, K. (2015) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334 · Cited by 74
Marsden, E. J., Morgan‐Short, K., Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12284 · Cited by 71
Increasing propensity to mind‐wander by transcranial direct current stimulation? A registered report
Boayue, N. M., Csifcsák, G., Aslaksen, P. M., Turi, Z., Antal, A., Groot, J. M., Hawkins, G. E., Forstmann, B. U., Opitz, A., Thielscher, A., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14347 · Cited by 62
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., Martone, M. E., Bergstrom, H. C., Bespalov, A., & Graf, C. (2018) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.1141 · Cited by 70
Open Communication Science: A Primer on Why and Some Recommendations for How
Lewis, N. A. (2019) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660 · Cited by 65
Flake, J. K. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1898962 · Cited by 58
Köhler, T., González‐Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., Woo, S. E., & Gulick, L. M. V. (2020) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2019.121 · Cited by 59
Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 PandemicPreprint
Besançon, L., Peiffer‐Smadja, N., Ségalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Billy, É., Déforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.08.13.249847 · Cited by 59
Stahl, C. (2015) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000289 · Cited by 54
How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations
Baumgartner, H. A., Alessandroni, N., Byers‐Heinlein, K., Frank, M. C., Hamlin, J. K., Söderström, M., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., Yuen, F. L., & Coles, N. A. (2023) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.230235 · Cited by 67
Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics ResearchPreprint
Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. A. (2017) · MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/9a3rw · Cited by 58
Preregistration of Analyses of Preexisting Data
Mertens, G., & Krypotos, A. (2019) · Psychologica Belgica · doi:10.5334/pb.493 · Cited by 49
Bloomfield, R. J., Rennekamp, K. M., & Steenhoven, B. A. (2018) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12208 · Cited by 48
Byrne, J. A., Park, Y., Richardson, R. A. K., Pathmendra, P., Sun, M., & Stoeger, T. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkac1139 · Cited by 46
Practical Considerations for Navigating Registered Reports
Kiyonaga, A., & Scimeca, J. M. (2019) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2019.07.003 · Cited by 46
Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms
Nyhan, B. J. (2015) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096515000463 · Cited by 57
Field, S. M., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Kiers, H. A. L., Hoekstra, R., Ernst, A. F., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.181351 · Cited by 43
A Case for Multisite Second Language Acquisition Research: Challenges, Risks, and Rewards
Moranski, K., & Ziegler, N. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12434 · Cited by 50
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Banks, G. C., Landis, R. S., & Tonidandel, S. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618767883 · Cited by 45
Estimating the Replicability of Sports and Exercise Science Research
Murphy, J., Caldwell, A. R., Mesquida, C., Ladell, A. J. M., Martínez, A. E., Tual, A., Denys, A. T., Cameron, B., Hooren, B. V., Parr, B., et al. (2025) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-025-02201-w · Cited by 51
Stracke, C. M. (2020) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4276-3_2 · Cited by 49
Conditional equivalence testing: An alternative remedy for publication bias
Campbell, H., & Gustafson, P. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195145 · Cited by 42
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tennant, J., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., et al. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.2 · Cited by 45
Rubin, M. (2017) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/gpr0000135 · Cited by 32
A practical guide for transparency in psychological sciencePreprint
Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rtygm · Cited by 46
Robust Standards in Cognitive Science
Crüwell, S., Stefan, A. M., & Evans, N. J. (2019) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-019-00049-8 · Cited by 35
Improving norms in research culture to incentivize transparency and rigor
Mellor, D. T. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329 · Cited by 40
Radical Solutions and Open Science
Burgos, D. (2020) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4276-3 · Cited by 49
Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses
Patall, E. A. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009 · Cited by 37
Promoting reproducibility with registered reports
(2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0034 · Cited by 32
Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research
Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. A. (2016) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w22989 · Cited by 32
Gorman, D. M. (2017) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.009 · Cited by 29
Preregistration and registered reports
Reich, J. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1900851 · Cited by 33
Evaluating Registered Reports: A Naturalistic Comparative Study of Article Impact
Hopun, L. T., Singleton Thorn, F., Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/5y8w7 · Cited by 29
Improving energy research practices: guidance for transparency, reproducibility and quality
Huebner, G. M., Fell, M. J., & Watson, N. E. (2021) · Buildings and Cities · doi:10.5334/bc.67 · Cited by 32
Putze, F., Putze, S., Sagehorn, M., Micek, C., & Solovey, E. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3490554 · Cited by 28
Beyond single paradigms, pipelines, and outcomes: Embracing multiverse analyses in psychophysiology
Clayson, P. E. (2024) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112311 · Cited by 29
The Scientific Method in the Science of Machine LearningPreprint
Forde, J. Z., & Paganini, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.10922 · Cited by 45
Wyndham, J. M., Weisenberg, N., McCarty, C. A., Goldman, G. T., Brown, M., & Borenstein, J. (2022) · doi:10.1126/aaas.ade8203 · Cited by 29
Briker, R., & Gerpott, F. H. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/10944281231210309 · Cited by 28
Crüwell, S., & Evans, N. J. (2021) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.210155 · Cited by 28
Which Findings Should Be Published?
Frankel, A. P., & Kasy, M. (2022) · American Economic Journal Microeconomics · doi:10.1257/mic.20190133 · Cited by 30
Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A., & Corker, K. S. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519 · Cited by 88
Pre-Registration in Social Psychology—a Discussion and Suggested TemplatePreprint
Veer, A. V. '., & Giner‐Sorolla, R. (2016) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/4frms · Cited by 31
How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved
Sena, E., & Currie, G. (2019) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.7120/09627286.28.1.107 · Cited by 23
A Practical Guide to Registered Reports for Economists
Arpinon, T., & Espinosa, R. (2022) · Journal of the Economic Science Association · doi:10.1007/s40881-022-00123-1 · Cited by 25
Combating the scientific decline effect with confidence (intervals)
Groppe, D. M. (2016) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12616 · Cited by 23
Embracing Open Science and Transparency in Health Psychology
Hagger, M. S. (2019) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1605614 · Cited by 22
Opening the Door to Registered Reports: Census of Journals Publishing Registered Reports (2013–2020)
Montoya, A. K., Krenzer, W. L. D., & Fossum, J. L. (2021) · Collabra Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.24404 · Cited by 25
Improving Human Interaction Research through Ecological Grounding
Albert, S., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018) · Collabra Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.132 · Cited by 23
Mapping the Universe of Registered ReportsPreprint
Hardwicke, T. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018) · MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/fzpcy · Cited by 31
Doing better leadership science via replications and registered reports
Carsten, M. K., Clapp‐Smith, R., Haslam, S. A., Bastardoz, N., Gooty, J., Connelly, S., & Spain, S. M. (2023) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101712 · Cited by 23
Efendić, E., & van Zyl, L. E. (2019) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1607 · Cited by 26
Results-blind review: a masked crusader for science
Woznyj, H. M., Grenier, K., Ross, R. L., Banks, G. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2018.1496081 · Cited by 25
Eben, C., Bőthe, B., Brevers, D., Clark, L., Grubbs, J. B., Heirene, R. M., Kräplin, A., Lewczuk, K., Palmer, L., Perales, J. C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.2023.00052 · Cited by 31
Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion
Charles, S. J., Bartlett, J. E., Messick, K. J., Coleman, T. J., III, & Uzdavines, A. (2019) · International Journal for the Psychology of Religion · doi:10.1080/10508619.2019.1660573 · Cited by 21
A Meta-analysis of the relationship between growth mindset and grit
Lam, K. K. L., & Zhou, M. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104872 · Cited by 28
EJPA Introduces Registered Reports as New Submission Format
Greiff, S., & Allen, M. S. (2018) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000492 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- D. Chambers, C., 1 Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, S. O. P., Feredoes, E., D. Muthukumaraswamy, S., & J. Etchells, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- ORCID
- Feredoes, Eva
- Venue
- AIMS Neuroscience
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-17
- ISSN
- 2373-7972 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072600048
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 27.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- AIMS neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/K008277/1, BB/C519854/2)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- questionable research practices, p-hacking, HARKing, replication, publication bias, statistical power, data sharing, research incentives, reproducibility, transparency, brain research
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
