Post #872385
2025-10-14 05:44 UTC
The journal Psychological Science totally revamped their review and decision criteria towards good scientific practice (instead of novelty and significance).
E.g., the reviewer instructions say:
"Please do not assume that findings from studies that are not preregistered were the result of a detailed a priori plan - that would be unfair to authors who allow us to see their plans by preregistering them. [...] We do not want to create a situation where authors who preregister have their submissions evaluated more harshly than authors who do not preregister.“
Hear hear!
I consider them (now) to be a real top journal in the field (in the actual, quality-oriented sense; not in the crooked marketing speech JIF sense).
#psych #openscience
Replies (2)
-
@olibrendel@scicomm.xyz 2025-10-14 05:57
@nicebread even though it seems good sense, I still have difficulties with this pre-registering experimental plans : at least in plant science, you are up to so many surprises, that you might have planned doing it one way, and ending up a different one. #academicchatter
-
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social 2025-10-14 06:55
@nicebread So, this means that non-preregistered studies should be evaluated more harshly because there is less transparency? I can imagine some social scientists (political science, sociology) would disagree if they cannot preregister their observational research. This maybe different for experiment-heavy psychology. In the end, there will always be a concern that some standard advantages one kind of research and disadvantages another.