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
Items 201–213 of 213
Psychological Science Replicates Just Fine, ThanksPreprint
Aarts, A. A. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4176922
A step forward in introducing registered reports to the vision science communityPreprint
Vera, J., Barrett, B. T., Jiménez, R., & Redondo, B. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2210688/v1
Bucher, H., Stroppe, A.-K., Burger, A. M., Faas, T., Schoen, H., Debus, M., & Roßteutscher, S. (2022) · Politische Vierteljahresschrift · doi:10.1007/s11615-022-00436-0
Analysis of the Pubmed Commons Post-Publication Peer Review Plateform.
Gorry, P., Mignot, L., & SABOURAUD, A. (2023) · International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI) · doi:10.55835/6442f02464eb99f94fe5a307
Reynolds, P. S. (2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119800002.ch5
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. (2024) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/0000409-035
Merits and Limits of Preregistration for Visualization Research
Besançon, L., Nosek, B. A., Haven, T. L., Meyer, M., Dunne, C., & Ghoniem, M. (2024) · IEEE Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches for Visualization (BELIV) · doi:10.1109/beliv64461.2024.00015
The paradox of creativity in the age of generative artificial intelligence
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34073-4.00019-8
Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of ReligionPreprint
Bartlett, J. E., Uzdavines, A., Coleman, T. J., III, Messick, K. J., & Charles, S. J. (2018) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
The benefits of preregistration for hypothesis-driven bilingualism researchPreprint
Vasishth, S., Mertzen, D., & Lago, S. (2022) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Die Präregistrierung in der klinischen Psychologie
Mundorf, A., Peterburs, J., & Ocklenburg, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-73259-5_4
Dear CAV, We Need to Talk About ReproducibilityPreprint
Crick, T., Hall, B. A., & Ishtiaq, S. S. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.02448
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
