Following a review of existing reporting standards, the American Psychological Association has published a paper which sets out revisions to existing standards, and adding new sets which address current positions and knowledge.
Changes to existing standards have been made to the meta-analysis section, and in the hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions, dividing them into 3 groupings (primary, secondary, and exploratory). Some new modules found in this version include standards for observational studies, clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and replication studies.
We recommend that all journal publishers, editors, authors and reviewers in the psychological sciences field read these, incorporate them as best practice guidelines in assessing papers for publication, and for all researchers to reference when designing and reporting their work.
The paper can be accessed for free here: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-00750-002
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25.
– Monday 22nd January, 2018 –
An Editorial published in Nature in September presented some “Steps towards transparency in research publishing” (Nature 2017;549(431), doi: 10.1038/549431a)
The Editorial discusses how progress in the transparency of both research and editorial processes is gathering pace, discussing five forms of transparency documented in a project overseen by Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh.
In addition to the positive steps, the Editorial also poses questions about the risks involved in opening up, considering whether transparency could give rise to a different sort of bias; for example, some authors do not want to know who authored a positive peer review, so that they can avoid future positive peer review bias themselves.
COPE has recently replaced its “Code of Conduct for Editors” with “Core Practices”.
The reasons COPE provide for these changes are stated on its website, as being that the guidelines were criticised for being overly specific in some areas and not specific enough in others.
It goes on to explain that the core practices have radically simplified the expectations of how all parties will act, and seeks to provide a framework which references the resources available on the COPE website.
Another recent change is the introduction of institutional membership which is being piloted with five institutions.
A discussion of these changes can be read on Scholarly Kitchen.
– Posted: Wednesday 13th December, 2017 –