Registered Reports (RRs) is a publishing model in which initial peer review happens before the research is completed. In-principle acceptance before knowing outcomes combats publication bias and provides a clear distinction between confirmatory and exploratory research. The theoretical case for how RRs would improve the credibility of research findings is straightforward, but there is little empirical evidence. Also, there could be unintended costs of RRs such as reducing innovation or novelty. 353 researchers peer reviewed a pair of papers from 29 published RRs and 57 non-RR comparison papers. RRs outperformed comparison papers on all 19 criteria (mean difference=. 46) with effects ranging from little difference in novelty (0.13) and creativity (0.22) to substantial differences in rigor of methodology (0.99) and analysis (0.97) and overall paper quality (0.66). RRs could improve research quality while reducing publication bias and ultimately improve the credibility of the published literature.
Psychological science has seen an explosion of metascientific work on improving research practices, especially in the area of replicability (reducing false positives). This movement, sometimes called the credibility revolution, has spread to address other problems afflicting psychological science. Here we focus on the “four validities” (Shadish et al., 2002) and highlight some of the most important developments aimed at improving these four validities in psychology research. We propose that the credibility revolution in psychology, while having its roots in replicability, has spurred major advances in validity more broadly, and much of this work has been led by early career researchers.
Mounting evidence supports long-standing claims that religions can extend cooperative networks. However, religious prosociality may have a strongly parochial component. Moreover, aspects of religion may promote or exacerbate conflict with those outside a given religious group, promoting regional violence, intergroup conflict and tacit prejudice against non-believers. Anti-atheist prejudice a growing concern in increasingly secular societies affects employment, elections, family life and broader social inclusion.
Atheists represent an inconspicuous minority, identifiable only by their disbelief in God(s). Despite being highly stigmatized and disliked, until recent scientific endeavors, little has been known about this group including why they don't believe, how many people are atheists, and why they trigger intense reactions. Thus, this paper aims to synthesize what is known about atheists (so far) and to help explain the widespread negative attitudes and prejudice towards atheists; the possible cognitive, motivational, and cultural origins of disbelief; and the unique challenges facing the study of religious disbelievers. To do so, we will explore current findings in psychological research on atheism by considering the complex interactions of cultural learning, motivations, and core cognitive processes. Although significant scientific progress has been made in understanding the factors underlying atheism, there remains much to be explored in the domain of religious disbelief.