Send to

Choose Destination
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul;8(4):424-32. doi: 10.1177/1745691613491437. : Grassroots Support for Reforming Reporting Standards in Psychology.

Author information

Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
School of Psychology, University of Kent.
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen.
ICF International, Fairfax, Virginia.
Department of Psychology, University of Florida.


There is currently an unprecedented level of doubt regarding the reliability of research findings in psychology. Many recommendations have been made to improve the current situation. In this article, we report results from, a novel open-science initiative that provides a platform for authors of recently published articles to disclose four methodological design specification details that are not required to be disclosed under current reporting standards but that are critical for accurate interpretation and evaluation of reported findings. Grassroots sentiment-as manifested in the positive and appreciative response to our initiative-indicates that psychologists want to see changes made at the systemic level regarding disclosure of such methodological details. Almost 50% of contacted researchers disclosed the requested design specifications for the four methodological categories (excluded subjects, nonreported conditions and measures, and sample size determination). Disclosed information provided by participating authors also revealed several instances of questionable editorial practices, which need to be thoroughly examined and redressed. On the basis of these results, we argue that the time is now for mandatory methods disclosure statements for all psychology journals, which would be an important step forward in improving the reliability of findings in psychology.


disclosure; methodological design specifications; methodology; reporting standards


Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center