ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2019
Improving Psychological Science through Transparency and Openness: An Overview.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Grounded cognition and the representation of momentum: abstract concepts modulate mislocalization.Psychological research · 2025Article
- The effects of listening on speaker and listener while talking about character strengths: an open science school-wide collaboration.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (GLMM) of Functional Analysis Graphical Construction Elements on Visual Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Integrating open science education into an undergraduate health professional research program.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Monte Carlo Analyses for Single-Case Experimental Designs: An Untapped Resource for Applied Behavioral Researchers and Practitioners.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- A Priori Justification for Effect Measures in Single-Case Experimental Designs.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Meta-Analytic Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Behavior Science Research.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Article
- The Evolution of Behavior Analysis: Toward a Replication Crisis?Perspectives on behavior science · 2020Article
- Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The consecutive controlled case series: Design, data-analytics, and reporting methods supporting the study of generality.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.Auditory perception & cognition · 2020Article
- An Information Theoretic Approach to Model Selection: A Tutorial with Monte Carlo Confirmation.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Editorial: Behavior Science for the Public Welfare.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Editorial: The Behavior of Organizations in a Scalable Selectionist System.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- An Overview of Scientific Reproducibility: Consideration of Relevant Issues for Behavior Science/Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Replication Research, Publication Bias, and Applied Behavior Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to independently verify and replicate observations made by other researchers is a hallmark of science. In this article, we provide an overview of recent discussions concerning replicability and best practices in mainstream psychology with an emphasis on the practical benefists to both researchers and the field as a whole. We first review challenges individual researchers face in producing research that is both publishable and reliable. We then suggest methods for producing more accurate research claims, such as transparently disclosing how results were obtained and analyzed, preregistering analysis plans, and publicly posting original data and materials. We also discuss ongoing changes at the institutional level to incentivize stronger research. These include officially recognizing open science practices at the journal level, disconnecting the publication decision from the results of a study, training students to conduct replications, and publishing replications. We conclude that these open science practices afford exciting low-cost opportunities to improve the quality of psychological science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.