Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research and Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

Pennington, Charlotte Rebecca; Heim, Derek

doi:10.1080/16066359.2021.1931142

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI-RR; Peer Community-In, 2023a) is a non-profit platform launched to handle the reviewing of RRs and recommends these to participating journals for publication. This allows authors to choose which of the 'PCI-friendly' journals who opt-into the scheme they wish to publish their work in, and reduces the effort that would be required to submit to multiple journals individually (Pennington & Heim, 2022). 'PCI-interested' journals opt-in to be notified of Stage 1 Registered Reports accepted via PCI-RR for consideration of publication.…”

Section: Registered Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demystifying Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Practical Guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes

Norris,

O'Mahony,

Coyne

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science practices are integral to increasing transparency, reproducibility and accessibility of research in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Drives to facilitate Open Science practices are becoming increasingly evident in journal editorial policies, including the establishment of new paper formats such as Registered Reports and Data Notes. This paper provides: i) an overview of the current state of Open Research policies within health psychology and behavioral medicine, ii) a call for submissions to an Article Collection of Registered Reports and Data Notes as new paper formats within the journal of Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, iii) an overview of Registered Reports and Data Notes, and iv) practical considerations for authors and reviewers of Registered Reports and Data Notes.

show abstract

Section: Registered Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demystifying Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Practical Guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes

Norris,

O'Mahony,

Coyne

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Explanations for this range-from “dysfunctional” academic incentives that reward quantity over quality in research outputs (Nosek et al, 2012; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016), the drive for novelty over replication (Makel et al, 2012), an overreliance on underpowered experimental studies (Bakker et al, 2016; Button et al, 2013), and the potential for researcher degrees of freedom to influence the scientific process (John et al, 2012; Simmons et al, 2011). These issues have also begun to be discussed in addiction science (Adewumi et al, 2021; Gorman, 2019; Heirene, 2021; LaPlante, 2019) leading to various “open science” reforms (see Kathawalla et al, 2021; Pennington & Heim, 2021; Pennington et al, 2021). Yet there is one additional explanation that is often overlooked in such discussions— insufficient resource investment into scientific research (Cristea & Naudet, 2019; Forscher et al, 2020).…”

Section: Researcher Consortiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond online participant crowdsourcing: The benefits and opportunities of big team addiction science.

Pennington¹,

Jones²,

Tzavella³

et al. 2022

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participant crowdsourcing platforms (e.g., MTurk, Prolific) offer numerous advantages to addiction science, permitting access to hard-to-reach populations and enhancing the feasibility of complex experimental, longitudinal, and intervention studies. Yet these are met with equal concerns about participant nonnaivety, motivation, and careless responding, which if not considered can greatly compromise data quality. In this article, we discuss an alternative crowdsourcing avenue that overcomes these issues whilst presenting its own unique advantages-crowdsourcing researchers through big team science. First, we review several contemporary efforts within psychology (e.g., ManyLabs, Psychological Science Accelerator) and the benefits these would yield if they were more widely implemented in addiction science. We then outline our own consortium-based approach to empirical dissertations: a grassroots initiative that trains students in reproducible big team addiction science. In doing so, we discuss potential challenges and their remedies, as well as providing resources to help addiction researchers develop these initiatives. Through researcher crowdsourcing, together we can answer fundamental scientific questions about substance use and addiction, build a literature that is representative of a diverse population of researchers and participants, and ultimately achieve our goal of promoting better global health. Public Health SignificanceThis special issue on "crowdsourcing methods in addiction science" focuses on best practices and emerging research that uses online participant recruitment platforms. An alternative method is that of crowdsourcing researchers through big team science. In this article, we: (a) review contemporary researcher crowdsourcing efforts and the benefits these would bring to addiction science; (b) outline our approach to teaching students in reproducible big team addiction science; and (c) evaluate challenges and their remedies, as well as providing resources, to help others develop these initiatives.

show abstract

“…The manuscript accepted in the corresponding thematic PCI will be addressed smoothly by journals (Particularly, the Peer Community Journal and PCI-friendly journals). Recently, PCI has started handling RRs (i.e., PCI Registered Reports [9]), and PCI Registered Reports, as well as RRs-friendly journals, might work well with the trinity review system. As mentioned above, a trinity review system can be managed by the existing systems.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trinity Review: Integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews

Mori¹,

Takashima²,

Sasaki³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One major source of high exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents (research papers, applications for ethics review, and applications for research grants) for the same research plan. These similar documents are submitted to three different organizations, each with its own format, and independently peer-reviewed three times. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken concurrently for a pre-experimental research protocol. When the protocol is accepted in principle through these review processes, a funding review will occur, and researchers will conduct their studies. After experiments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted for a completed version of the paper including results and discussions (i.e., the full paper) again, and the full paper will be published after it has passed the second review. This paper provides a detailed explanation of the operation of the trinity review system and discusses the positive impacts and solutions to difficulties in its implementation.

show abstract

Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research and Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

Cited by 7 publications

References 28 publications

Demystifying Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Practical Guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes

Demystifying Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Practical Guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes

Beyond online participant crowdsourcing: The benefits and opportunities of big team addiction science.

Trinity Review: Integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About