Search

The emergence of large-scale replication projects yielding successful rates substantially lower than expected caused the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences to experience a so-called ‘replication crisis’. In this Perspective, we reframe this ‘crisis’ through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact on our research environment.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’ attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its effectiveness in restricting potentially biasing researcher degrees of freedom remains unclear. We used an extensive protocol to assess the strictness of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistration and publications of 300 preregistered psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. Combining the strictness and consistency results highlights that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom are prevalent and likely in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded stricter and hence better preregistrations. We did not find that effectiveness of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally more effectively preregistered than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write stricter preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from the preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates.

The preprint is about how participatory research movement and neurodiversity movement can benefit the open scholarship movement and vice versa, leading to a more generalisable and accurate science of human behaviour and cognition.

The culture and norms of research laboratories can greatly influence the quality of scientific outputs produced by the lab and the well-being of its members. In most labs, the culture that governs how individual researchers behave in their work is often implicit and situational. In contrast, some labs develop their own lab manual, a written document that outlines their standard functioning. Such a lab manual can ensure that lab members have a shared and mutual understanding of who they are and how they do things. We argue that every lab could benefit from a lab manual because it facilitates efficient collaboration, reduces potential research mistakes, and aids the integration of new good research practices.Developing a lab manual without a doubt requires extra effort. To decrease researchers’ burden of creating their own lab manual, we provide a lab manual template that outlines the different topics that could be included in a manual. Moreover, we introduce an easy-to-use web app, blueprint, that further simplifies the process of creating a lab manual using our template. The present paper aims to serve as a guide for those who would like to partake in this endeavor.

Most of the commonly used and endorsed guidelines for systematic review protocols and reporting standards have been developed for intervention research. These excellent guidelines have been adopted as the gold-standard for systematic reviews as an evidence synthesis method. In the current paper, we highlight some issues that may arise from adopting these guidelines beyond intervention designs, including in basic behavioural, cognitive, experimental, and exploratory research. We have adapted and built upon the existing guidelines to establish a complementary, comprehensive, and accessible tool for designing, conducting, and reporting Non-Intervention, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR). NIRO-SR is a checklist composed of two parts that provide itemised guidance on the preparation of a systematic review protocol for pre-registration (Part A) and reporting the review (Part B) in a reproducible and transparent manner. This paper, the tool, and an open repository (https://osf.io/f3brw/) provide a comprehensive resource for those who aim to conduct a high quality, reproducible, and transparent systematic review of non-intervention studies.