Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:52:50.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Ethical Issues in Psychological Science

Studying Humans, Analyzing Data, Publishing Findings

from Part I - Before You Dive In

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

By
Chris Crandall ,
Roger Giner-Sorolla  and
Monica Biernat
Edited by
Harry T. Reis ,
Tessa West  and
Charles M. Judd
Harry T. Reis
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, New York
Tessa West
Affiliation:
New York University
Charles M. Judd
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

The scientific community fundamentally requires the conduct of research to meet ethical standards. Bureaucracy and regulation may enforce these requirements, but they ultimately reflect the underlying values of science and the social norms that translate these values into practice. In creating knowledge, scientists must protect research participants, and they are also obliged to treat their data and communications in accordance with honesty, transparency, and a commitment to the benefit of society. We review the history and current state of human participant protection; make a case that many of the changes in standards of data handling and publication reporting over the past ten years themselves have ethical dimensions; and briefly list a number of pending ethics issues in research and publishing that do not as yet have a clear, consensual resolution in the field of psychology.

Keywords

publishingethicshuman participantsopen scienceinformed consentmeta-sciencecoauthors
Type
Chapter
Information
Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology , pp. 17 - 44
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abele-Brehm, A. E., Gollwitzer, M., Steinberg, U., and Schönbrodt, F. D. (2019). Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing: A survey among members of the German Psychological Society. Social Psychology, 50(4), 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aly, M., Colunga, E., Crockett, M. J., Goldrick, M., Gomez, P., Kung, F. Y. H., McKee, P. C., Pérez, M., Stilwell, S. M., and Diekman, A. B. (2022). Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. Preprint available at https://psyarxiv.com/435xz.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (1994) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2001) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2010) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Available from the author at www.apa.org/ethics/code.Google Scholar
Azar, M., Riehm, K. E., McKay, D., and Thombs, B. D. (2015). Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azpeitia, J., Lombard, E. J., Pope, T., and Cheryan, S. (2022). Reference Audit: A Technique for Diversifying Your References. Seattle, WA: University of Washington (citation audit template available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HHM6i1WDaAVzSJxgZG8UtNWP3aRcFprsdVpLZJEWxOQ/edit#gid=759055580).Google Scholar
Bakker, M., Veldkamp, C. L., van Assen, M. A., Crompvoets, E. A., Ong, H. H., Nosek, B. A., Soderberg, C. K., Mellor, D., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLoS biology, 18(12), e3000937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, P. J. (2022). Psychological science stepping up a level. Psychological Science, 33(2), 179–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, D. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., and Roediger III, H. L. (eds.) The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bem, D. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., … and Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biros, M. (2018). Capacity, vulnerability, and informed consent for research. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 46, 72–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boynton, M. H., Portnoy, D. B., and Johnson, B. T. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Chambers, C. D., and Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present and future of registered reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, L. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, T. M. L., Lafferty-Hess, S., Jacoby, W. G., and Carsey, T. (2018). Operationalizing the replication standard. International Journal of Digital Curation, 13(1), 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, D. J. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claesen, A., Gomes, S., Tuerlinckx, F., and Vanpaemel, W. (2021). Comparing dream to reality: An assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies. Royal Society Open Science, 8(10), 211037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coffelt, T. A. (2017). Confidentiality and anonymity of participants. In Allen, M. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, SAGE publications.Google Scholar
Constine, J. (2014). The morality of A/B testing. TechCrunch+. At https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/29/ethics-in-a-data-driven-world.Google Scholar
Craig, R., Cox, A., Tourish, D., and Thorpe, A. (2020). Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done? Research Policy, 49(4), 103930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, C. S. (2001). Scientific progress: A need for trust, a need for skepticism. Dialogue, 16(2), 20–21.Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S. (2019). Science as dissent: The practical value of basic and applied science. Journal of Social Issues, 75(2), 630–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criado-Perez, C. (2021). Measuring and predicting the use of evidence-based management. Ph.D. dissertation, UNSW Sydney.Google Scholar
Crosas, M., Gautier, J., Karcher, S., Kirilova, D., Otalora, G., and Schwartz, A. (2018). Data policies of highly-ranked social science journals. At https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9h7ay.Google Scholar
Curtis, B. L. (2014). Social networking and online recruiting for HIV research: Ethical challenges. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., and Ozge Buzbas, E. (2020). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), 200805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., … and Nosek, B. A. (2016). Many labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, D. (2017) Daryl Bem proved ESP is real: Which means science is broken. Slate, June 7, 2017.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE, 4(5), e5738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, N., Honeycutt, N., and Jussim, L. (2022). Better understanding the population size and stigmatization of psychologists using questionable research practices. Meta-psychology, 6, MP.2020.2601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, R., and Nilsonne, G. (2017). IRBs and data sharing. At https://gilmore-lab.github.io/sips-2017-07-30/#5.Google Scholar
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 562–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Approaching a fair deal for significance and other concerns. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giofrè, D., Boedker, I., Cumming, G., Rivella, C., and Tressoldi, P. (March 7, 2022). The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors’ reporting of statistics and use of open research practices: Five years later. MetaArXiv. At https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/8ya3m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, J. E., and Cunningham, C. A. (2015). The promise of preregistration in psychological research. Psychological Science Agenda, 29(8), 2014–2017.Google Scholar
Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., and Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in the Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. H. (1948). Ethics governing the service of prisoners as subjects in medical experiments. Journal of the American Medical Association, 136, 457–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsalus, C. K., Marcus, A. R., and Oransky, I. (2018). Institutional research misconduct reports need more credibility. JAMA, 319(13), 1315–1316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, U. C. (2013). Informed consent in clinical research: Revisiting few concepts and areas. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hailes, H. P., Ceccolini, C. J., Gutowski, E., and Liang, B. (2021). Ethical guidelines for social justice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwicke, T. E., Bohn, M., MacDonald, K., Hembacher, E., Nuijten, M. B., Peloquin, B. N., … and Frank, M. C. (2021). Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: An observational study. Royal Society Open Science, 8(1), 201494, DOI:10.1098/rsos.201494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardwicke, T. E., and Ioannidis, J. P. (2018). Populating the data ark: An attempt to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from the most highly-cited psychology and psychiatry articles. PLOS one, 13(8), e0201856, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardwicke, T. E., Mathur, M. B., MacDonald, K., Nilsonne, G., Banks, G. C., Kidwell, M. C., … Frank, M. C. (2018). Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal cognition. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180448, DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., and Ioannidis, J. P. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heirene, R., LaPlante, D., Louderback, E. R., Keen, B., Bakker, M., Serafimovska, A., and Gainsbury, S. M. (2021, July 16). Preregistration specificity & adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies & cross-disciplinary comparison. At https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nj4es.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M., Bishop, D. V., Nichols, T. E., and Wagenmakers, E. J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivy, A. C. (1949). Nazi war crimes of a medical nature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 139, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, W. (March 26, 2015). The AJPS replication policy: Innovations and revisions. American Journal of Political Science Editor Blog. At https://ajps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ajps-replic-and-verif-policy-2-27-18.pdf.Google Scholar
Jin, X., Chandramouli, C., Allocco, B., Gong, E., Lam, C. S. P., and Yan, L. L. (2020). Women’s participation in cardiovascular clinical trials from 2010–2017. Circulation, 141, 540–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, K. J., and Cesario, J. (2016). How can preregistration contribute to research in our field? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 1(1–3), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, C. H., and Zanna, M. P. (1999). How to read a journal article in social psychology. In Baumeister, R. F. (ed.) The Self in Social Psychology. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L. S., … and Nosek, B. A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biology, 14(5), e1002456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kisselburgh, L., and Beever, J. (2022). The ethics of privacy in research and design: Principles, practices, and potential. In Knijnenburg, B. P., Page, X., Wisniewski, P., Lipford, H. R., Proferes, N., and Romano, J. (eds.) Modern Socio-technical Perspectives on Privacy. Springer.Google Scholar
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., AdamsJr, R. Alper, B., S., … and Sowden, W. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, S. B. (2014). What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology? Theory & Psychology, 24, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, J. H. (1997). Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, K. M., Murphy, B., Azpeitia, J., Lombard, E. Pope, T., and Hall, J. A. (2022). Citing behaviors in psychology: A roadblock to cumulative and inclusive science (preprint). Available at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6kvqg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, M. M., and Harbin, J. J. (1997). Psychological ethics codes: A comparison of twenty‐four countries. International Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., and Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure. org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 424–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeBel, E. P., and Peters, K. R. (2012). Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, A. (2018). The preregistration revolution needs to distinguish between predictions and analyses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), E10516–E10517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford prison experiment. American Psychologist, 74, 823–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, H. E. (2020). Science as social knowledge. In Longino, H. E., Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maassen, E., Van Assen, M. A., Nuijten, M. B., Olsson-Collentine, A., and Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology. PLOS one, 15(5), e0233107, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDaniel, T., and Starmer, C. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majeed, A., and Lee, S. (2020). Anonymization techniques for privacy preserving data publishing: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 9, 8512–8545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martone, M. E., Garcia-Castro, A., and VandenBos, G. R. (2018). Data sharing in psychology. American Psychologist, 73(2), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical Inference as Severe Testing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In Merton, R. K. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelzon, T. (2021). Dan Ariely was suspended from research at MIT after conducting unauthorized experiment with human subjects. HaMakom. At www.ha-makom.co.il/post-tomer-dan-ariely-mit-suspention.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitscherlich, A., and Mielke, F. (1949). Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes. Henry Schuman.Google Scholar
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., and Fiedler, K. (2014). Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narayanan, A., and Shmatikov, V. (2008, May). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008). IEEE.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Department of Health, Education and Welfare (September 30, 1978). The Belmont Report. United States Government Printing Office. DHEW pub. no. (OS) 78-0012. At http://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2014). Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ndebele, P. (2013). The Declaration of Helsinki, 50 years later. Jama, 310(20), 2145–2146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … and Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture: The TOP guidelines for journals. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., and Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuijten, M. B., Borghuis, J., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Dominguez-Alvarez, L., van Assen, M. A. L. M., and Wicherts, J. M. (2017). Journal data sharing policies and statistical reporting inconsistencies in psychology. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), doi.org/10.1525/collabra.102.Google Scholar
Code, The Nuremberg. (1947). In A. Mitscherlich and F. Mielke, Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes. New York: Schuman (1949), xxiii–xxv.Google Scholar
Obels, P., Lakens, D., Coles, N. A., Gottfried, J., and Green, S. A. (2020). Analysis of open data and computational reproducibility in registered reports in psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojanuga, D. (1993). The medical ethics of the “father of gynecology,” Dr J Marion Sims. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19(1), 28–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oransky, I., and Marcus, N. (2016). How researchers lock up their study data with sharing fees. STAT. At www.statnews.com/2016/09/30/data-sharing-fees.Google Scholar
Pace, L. A., and Livingston, M. M. (2005). Protecting human subjects in internet research. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 10, 35–40.Google Scholar
Painter, A., and Sterba, S. (eds.) (2011). Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual-Leone, A., Singh, T., and Scoboria, A. (2010). Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers. Canadian Psychology, 51(4), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, A., and Sterba, S. (eds.) (2011). Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea, S. C., Kleeman, H., Zhu, Q., Gilbert, B., and Yue, C. (2020). Crowdsourcing as a tool for research: Methodological, fair, and political considerations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 40(3–4), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reverby, S. M. (ed.). (2012). Tuskegee’s Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. UNC Press Books.Google Scholar
Riehm, K. E., Azar, M., and Thombs, B. D. (2015). Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials in top psychosomatic and behavioral health journals: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 79(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochios, C., and Richmond, J. L. (2022). Are we all on the same page? Subfield differences in open science practices in psychology. Infant and Child Development, 33(1), e2361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosnow, R. L., and Rosenthal, R. (2011). Ethical principles in data analysis: An overview. In Painter, A. and Sterba, S. (eds.) Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubin, Mark. (2020). Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 376–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakaluk, J., Williams, A., and Biernat, M. (2014). Analytic review as a solution to the misreporting of statistical results in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheel, A. M. (2022). Why most psychological research findings are not even wrong. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R., and Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., and Dotson, K. (2021). Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shweder, R., and Nesbitt, R. (2017). Don’t let your misunderstanding of the rules hinder your research. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com.Google Scholar
Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(20), 1436–1440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SPSP TOP II Task Force (2022). Resources: TOP II guidelines, FAQ/guidance. Retrieved from https://spsp.org/professional-development/publishing-resources/top-ii-guidelines-faq-guidance#1.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. S., and Sternberg, K. (2010). The Psychologist’s Companion: A Guide to Scientific Writing for Students and Researchers, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, D. H., White, S. A., and Bierer, B. E. (2021). Justice, diversity, and research ethics review. Science, 371(6535), 1209–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stricker, J., and Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology: A systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, L. (2000). Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Health, 671(2000), 1–34.Google Scholar
Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E. et al. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci Data 8(192) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Towse, J. N., Ellis, D. A., and Towse, A. S. (2021). Opening Pandora’s box: Peeking inside psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change. Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1455–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsang, W., Alter, D. A., Wijeysundera, H. C., Zhang, T., and Ko, D. T. (2012). The impact of cardiovascular disease prevalence on women’s enrollment in landmark randomized cardiovascular trials: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van’t Veer, A. E., and Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Preregistration in social psychology: A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanpaemel, W., Vermorgen, M., Deriemaecker, L., and Storms, G. (2015). Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm. Collabra, 1(1), DOI:10.1525/collabra.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vazire, S., and Holcombe, A. O. (2022). Where are the self-correcting mechanisms in science? Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., and van der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walton, G. M., and Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weindling, P. (2001). The origins of informed consent: The International Scientific Commission on Medical War Crimes, and the Nuremberg Code. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 75, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendler, D., and Miller, F. G. (2004). Deception in the pursuit of science. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 597–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., and Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimbardo, P. G., Banks, W. C., Haney, C., and Jaffe, D. (April 8, 1973). The mind is a formidable jailer. New York Times magazine, 38 ff.Google Scholar
Zhou, H., and Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×