ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stage 2 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Stage 1 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation.F1000Research · 2020Pooled it
- The emerging disenchantment with retrospective meta-analysis.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Article
- Concerns About Replicability Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Addressing researcher fraud: retrospective, real-time, and preventive strategies-including legal points and data management that prevents fraud.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Prior beliefs and the interpretation of scientific results.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Correction to: 'Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: The Transparent Psi Project' (2023) by KekecsRoyal Society open science · 2023Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
30 authors at 15 institutions in 13 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The low reproducibility rate in social sciences has produced hesitation among researchers in accepting published findings at their face value. Despite the advent of initiatives to increase transparency in research reporting, the field is still lacking tools to verify the credibility of research reports. In the present paper, we describe methodologies that let researchers craft highly credible research and allow their peers to verify this credibility. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a multi-laboratory replication of Bem's Experiment 1 (Bem 2011
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.