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
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824
Nosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301
Sterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964
Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On?
Dienes, Z. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611406920 · Cited by 938
Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?
Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460688 · Cited by 750
“Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Fanelli, D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 · Cited by 734
Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 · Cited by 716
Registered Reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex
Chambers, C. (2012) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016 · Cited by 608
Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612464056 · Cited by 563
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 · Cited by 441
Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828 · Cited by 424
Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks
the IMAGEN Consortium, Whelan, R., Conrod, P. J., Poline, J.-B., Lourdusamy, A., Banaschewski, T., Barker, G. J., Bellgrove, M. A., Büchel, C., Byrne, M., et al. (2012) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3092 · Cited by 420
The Long Way From α-Error Control to Validity Proper
Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Krueger, J. I. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612462587 · Cited by 240
de Groot, A. D. (2014) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.001 · Cited by 165
Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process
Mathieu, S., Chan, A., & Ravaud, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059910 · Cited by 76
Stahl, C. (2014) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000257 · Cited by 45
Strube, M. (2006) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192746 · Cited by 41
Registered Reports and Replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
(2013) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0502-5 · Cited by 20
Storkel, H. L., & Gallun, F. J. (2022) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00513 · Cited by 8
Registered Reports: A new submission format at Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Munafo, M. R., & Strain, E. C. (2014) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.699 · Cited by 7
Hill, C. R., Samendinger, S., & Rymal, A. M. (2020) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kaaa080 · Cited by 3
Registered Reports: A new chapter at Ecology & Evolution
Gya, R., Birkeli, K., Dahle, I. J., Foote, C. G., Geange, S. R., Lynn, J. S., Töpper, J. P., Vandvik, V., Zernichow, C., & Jenkins, G. B. (2023) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.10023 · Cited by 2
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
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
