Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40447861›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Enhancing the quality and reproducibility of research: Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Studies - The PECANS statement for human studies.

C Costa, R Pezzetta, E Toffalini, M Grassi, G Cona, C Miniussi, P J Bauer, S Borgomaneri, M Brysbaert, C D Chambers and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

C CostaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5472-546X
R PezzettaIRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, Venice, Italy. rachele.pezzetta@hsancamillo.it.
E ToffaliniDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
M GrassiDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
G ConaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
C MiniussiCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
P J BauerDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
S BorgomaneriCentro studi e ricerche in Neuroscienze Cognitive, Dipartimento di Psicologia "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Cesena Campus, Cesena, Italy.
M BrysbaertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
C D ChambersCardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff, CF24 4HQ, UK.
N EdelstynSchool of Sciences, Bath SPA University, Bath, UK.
A EerlandBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
S J GilbertInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.
M A NitscheDepartment Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany.
R A PoldrackDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
A PuceDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
K R RidderinkhofDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
T Y SwaabDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
C UmiltàDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
M WienerDepartment of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
C ScarpazzaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
PECANS Extended Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are scientific papers providing all essential details necessary to ensure the replicability of study protocols? Are authors effectively conveying study design, data analysis, and the process of drawing inferences from their results? These represent only a fraction of the pressing questions that cognitive psychology and neuropsychology face in addressing the "crisis of confidence." This crisis has highlighted numerous shortcomings in the journey from research to publication. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PECANS (Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive And Neuropsychological Studies), a comprehensive checklist tool designed to guide the planning, execution, evaluation, and reporting of experimental research. PECANS emerged from a rigorous consensus-building process through the Delphi method. We convened a panel of international experts specialized in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology research practices. Through two rounds of iterative voting and a proof-of-concept phase, PECANS evolved into its final form. The PECANS checklist is intended to serve various stakeholders in the fields of cognitive sciences and neuropsychology, including: (i) researchers seeking to ensure and enhance reproducibility and rigor in their research; (ii) journal editors and reviewers assessing the quality of reports; (iii) ethics committees and funding agencies; (iv) students approaching methodology and scientific writing. PECANS is a versatile tool intended not only to improve the quality and transparency of individual research projects but also to foster a broader culture of rigorous scientific inquiry across the academic and research community.

Indexed as

ChecklistCognitionCognitive ScienceNeuropsychologyResearch DesignDelphi TechniqueHumansReproducibility of ResultsGuidelinesOpen scienceReplicabilityReproducibilityTransparency

Identifiers

PMID40447861
PMCPMC12125112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.