Ithaca College

The paper is about peer review guidelines promoting replicability and transparency in psychological science, and it is in press at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 

More and more psychological researchers have come to appreciate the perils of common but poorly justified research practices, and are rethinking commonly held standards for evaluating research. As this methodological reform expresses itself in psychological research, peer reviewers of such work must also adapt their practices to remain relevant. Reviewers of journal submissions wield considerable power to promote methodological reform, contributing to the advancement of a more robust psychological literature. We describe concrete practices that reviewers can use to encourage transparency, intellectual humility, and more valid assessments of methods and statistics.

The authors are William Davis (Wittenburg University), Roger Giner-Sorolla (University of Kent), Steven Lindsay (University of Victoria), Jessica Lougheed (Purdue University), Matthew Makel (Duke University), Matt Meier (Western Carolina University), Jessie Sun (University of California, Davis), Leigh Ann Vaughn (Ithaca College), and John Zelenski (Carleton University).