Abstract
The recent ‘replication crisis’ in psychology has focused attention on ways of increasing methodological rigor within the behavioral sciences. Part of this work has involved promoting ‘Registered Reports’, wherein journals peer review papers prior to data collection and publication. Although this approach is usually seen as a relatively recent development, we note that a prototype of this publishing model was initiated in the mid-1970s by parapsychologist Martin Johnson in the European Journal of Parapsychology (EJP). A retrospective and observational comparison of Registered and non-Registered Reports published in the EJP during a seventeen-year period provides circumstantial evidence to suggest that the approach helped to reduce questionable research practices. This paper aims both to bring Johnson’s pioneering work to a wider audience, and to investigate the positive role that Registered Reports may play in helping to promote higher methodological and statistical standards.
Highlights
In 2011, Daryl Bem published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology describing the results from nine experiments that appeared to support the existence of psychic ability (Bem, 2011)
The variable ‘Time’ was added as a continuous marker but yielded no significant effects (F [1,87] = 1.01,p = .32; for journal issue by Registration Status: F [1,87] = .14,p = .71). These findings suggest that the difference in the proportion of significant findings reported in RRs and non-RRs was not due to the two sets of studies investigating different topics, or improved methodology over time corresponding with fewer significant outcomes
A prototype of this publishing model was initiated in the mid-1970s by parapsychologist Martin Johnson, and ran many years in the European Journal of Parapsychology
Summary
In 2011, Daryl Bem published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology describing the results from nine experiments that appeared to support the existence of psychic ability (Bem, 2011). Several academics were critical of Bem’s paper, with researchers subsequently reporting a failure to replicate his experiments (Ritchie, Wiseman & French, 2012), commenting on the a priori unlikelihood of psychic ability existing (Wagenmakers et al, 2011) and questioning the validity of the original studies (Wagenmakers et al, 2011; Alcock, 2011; Francis, 2012; Schimmack, 2012) This latter strand of criticism focused on a variety of methodological and statistical issues, including the lack of a detailed analysis plan, selective reporting of data, post hoc analyses being presented as confirmatory findings, and the incomplete description of experimental procedures. Additional work on this topic identified several ’questionable research practices’ (QRPs), including the failure to publish null studies (creating the so-called ‘file drawer problem’), the
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
