Search

Systemic efforts have been employed to improve the reproducibility of published findings in psychology. To date, little research has been conducted evaluating how well these efforts work. In an effort to bridge this gap, the current study looked at journal submission requirements intended to encourage authors to engage in best practices for facilitating reproducible science and offers preliminary evidence for their potential efficacy. We calculated reproducibility indices (p -curves) for three randomly selected empirical studies published in each of 23 psychology journals in 2019 and correlated quantitative results from those analyzes with the number of submission requirements for each journal that intended to ensure compliance with best reporting practices. Results indicated a greater number of submission requirements at a given outlet was associated with indices indicating greater likelihood of reproducibility of findings. We frame findings as impetus for future, more extensive, research to identify causal links between submission requirements and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two preregistered studies explored the likelihood paper reviewers would request clarification from authors regarding potential questionable research practices (QRPs). Study 1 participants were instructed to imagine reviewing a journal manuscript as either a coauthor or peer reviewer and rate the extent to which they would request clarification from the author when encountering potential QRPs. Participants reported greater likelihood of requesting clarification when assigned to the coauthor relative to the peer reviewer role. Study 2 participants were assigned to either an anonymous or open-review condition and rated the extent to which they would seek clarification from an author regarding potential QRPs. Men (but not women) in the open review condition reported greater likelihood of seeking clarification about potential QRPs than men in the blind review condition. Results provide tentative evidence that motivational factors influence the peer review process, and suggestions are made for improving peer review practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers' reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists' experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We designed and tested the efficacy of a 1-hr training session to mitigate endorsement of questionable research practices (QRPs), research practices that raise ethical concerns and are detrimental to reproducible science, in psychology graduate students. We assessed attitudes toward QRPs 1 week prior to the training, 1 week following the training, and at 2-month follow-up. Participants reported QRPs as less ethically defensible 1 week following the intervention compared with 1 week prior, with attitudes at 2-month follow-up falling in between these time points. Results were maintained even when controlling for socially desirable responding. Participants who rated the training more favorably demonstrated greater attitude change toward detrimental research practices. These results provide evidence that an intervention to educate graduate students about QRPs and their negative impact on science can mitigate consideration of such practices as ethically defensible, although such benefits may not hold over time without additional training sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]