[1] FANELLI D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 90(3): 891-904.
[2] STEFAN A, SCHÖNBRODT F. Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies[J]. Royal Society open science, 2023, 10(2): 220346.
[3] MURPHY K, AGUINIS H. Harking: how badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results?[J]. Journal of business and psychology, 2019, 34(1): 1-17.
[4] YOUNG S, BANG H. The file-drawer problem, revisited[J]. Science, 2004, 306(5699): 1133-1134.
[5] ROSENTHAL R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1979, 86(3): 638-641.
[6] ALLEN D, HOWELL J. Groupthink in science: greed, pathological altruism, ideology, competition, and culture[M]. Cham: Springer, 2020: 99-113.
[7] SMALDINO P, TURNER M, CONTRERAS KALLENS P. Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science[J]. Royal Society open science, 2019, 6(7): 190194.
[8] MCELREATH R, SMALDINO P. Replication, communication, and the population dynamics of scientific discovery[J]. Plos one, 2015, 10(8): e0136088.
[9] WU Y, YANG Y, BRIAN U. A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of psychology papers over the past two decades[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023, 120(6): e2208863120-e2208863120.
[10] 陈序文, 姚长青, 雷雪. 学术出版视角下科研成果可重复性保障机制研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2023, 34(11): 1451-1457. (CHEN X W, YAO C Q, LEI X. Reproducibility safeguard mechanism of scientific research results from the perspective of academic publishing[J]. Chinese journal of scientific and technical periodicals, 2023, 34(11): 1451-1457.)
[11] DANIELE F. Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 115(11): 2628-2631.
[12] 周红霞. 科学研究的可重复性及其保障措施[J]. 科学学研究, 2022, 40(6): 961-968,1104. (ZHOU H X. Practices for reproducible science[J]. Studies in science of science, 2022, 40(6): 961-968,1104.)
[13] Registered Reports: what we’ve learned so far[J]. Nature methods, 2023, 20(10): 1439-1439.
[14] 黄国彬, 刘磊, 陈丽. 注册式研究报告的同行评议机制研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(18): 24-35. (HUANG G B, LIU L, CHEN L. Research on the peer review mechanism of registered reports[J]. Library and information service, 2021, 65(18): 24-35.)
[15] CHAMBERS C, TZAVELLA L. The past, present and future of registered reports[J]. Nature human behaviour, 2022, 6(1): 29-42.
[16] WOZNYJ H, GRENIER K, ROSS R, et al. Results-blind review: a masked crusader for science[J]. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 2018, 27(5): 561-576.
[17] MAGGIN D, ROBERTSON R, COOK B. Introduction to the special series on results-blind peer review: an experimental analysis on editorial recommendations and manuscript evaluations[J]. Behavioral disorders, 2020, 45(4): 195-206.
[18] BUTTON K, BAL L, CLARK A, et al. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review[J]. BMC psychology, 2016, 4(1): 59.
[19] ELMAN C, MAHONEY J, GERRING J. The production of knowledge: enhancing progress in social science[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020: 221-264.
[20] Registered reports: peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices [EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports.
[21] STERLING T. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1959, 54: 30-34.
[22] LYU X, XU Y, ZHAO X, et al. Beyond psychology: prevalence of p value and confidence interval misinterpretation across different fields[J]. Journal of pacific rim psychology, 2020, 14: e6.
[23] NOSEK B, EBERSOLE C, DEHAVEN A, et al. The preregistration revolution[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 115(11): 2600-2606.
[24] FANELLIA D, COSTASB R, IOANNIDISA J. Meta-assessment of bias in science[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017, 114(14): 3714-3719.
[25] 王阳, 肖昆. 论控制偏见的编辑制度革命——关于预注册遏制可重复性危机的机理研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2022, 40(4): 594-601, 664. (WANG Y, XIAO K. On the new editing system revolution to control bias——the studies of mechanism research of pre-registration to keep down reproducibility crisis[J]. Studies in science of science, 2022, 40(4): 594-601, 664.)
[26] POLYZOS N, VALACHIS A, PATAVOUKAS E, et al. Publication bias in reproductive medicine: from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual meeting to publication[J]. Human reproduction, 2011, 26(6): 1371-1376.
[27] SCHEEL A, SCHIJEN M, LAKENS D. An excess of positive results: comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports[J]. Advances in methods and practices in psychological science, 2021, 4(2): 251524592110074.
[28] PEPLOW M. Social sciences suffer from severe publication bias[J]. Nature, 2014, 7(4): 251-257.
[29] The missing pieces: a collection of negative, null and inconclusive results [EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://collections.plos.org/collection/missing-pieces/.
[30] ALLEN C, MEHLER D. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond[J]. Plos biology, 2019, 17(5): e3000246.
[31] 胡传鹏. 将预注册的重复实验纳入心理学研究方法的课程[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2019, 7(5): 261-262, 265. (HU C P. Incorporate pre-registered repeat experiments into the curriculum of psychological research methods[J]. Psychology: techniques and applications, 2019, 7(5): 261-262, 265.)
[32] GREENWALD A. Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1975, 82: 1-20.
[33] FANELLI D. “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences[J]. Plos one, 2010, 5(5): e10068.
[34] FIELD S, WAGENMAKERS E, KIERS H, et al. The effect of preregistration on trust in empirical research findings: results of a registered report[J]. Royal Society open science, 2020, 7(4): 181351.
[35] COSTA E, INBAR Y, TANNENBAUM D. Do registered reports make scientific findings more believable to the public? [J]. Collabra: psychology, 2022, 8(1): 32607.
[36] 郁林羲, 姚思卉, 康银花. 从科技期刊出版源头推进开放科学运动——TOP Factor的产生及影响[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2021, 32(1): 3-13. (YU L X, YAO S H, KANG Y H. Promote the open science movement from the source of the publication of scientific journals: the emergence and influence of top factor[J]. Chinese journal of scientific and technical, 2021, 32(1): 3-13.)
[37] Transparency and openness promotion (top) guidelines[EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelines.
[38] World conferences on research integrity: Hong Kong principles [EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles.
[39] BAKER M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility[J]. Nature, 2016, 533(7604): 452-454.
[40] MUNAFÒ M, NOSEK B, BISHOP D, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science[J]. Nature human behaviour, 2017, 1(1): 1-9.
[41] GOODMAN S, FANELLI D, IOANNIDISA J. What does research reproducibility mean? [J]. Science translational medicine, 2016, 8(341): 12-17.
[42] 黄国彬, 郑霞. 推进开放科学发展的注册式研究报告及其价值研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(7): 73-83. (HUANG G B, ZHENG X. Research on the registered reports and its value of promoting open science development[J]. Library and information service, 2020, 64(7): 73-83.)
[43] 王阳, 肖昆. 可重复性危机与预注册新进路[J]. 科学学研究, 2020, 38(5): 779-786. (WANG Y, XIAO K. Reproducibility crisis and new approach of pre-registration[J]. Studies in science of science, 2020, 38(5): 779-786.)
[44] 徐慧慧, 晏华. 基于相对危险度的儿童先心病风险因素分析算法[J]. 计算机科学, 2021, 48(6): 210-214. (XU H H, YAN H. Relative risk degree based risk factor analysis algorithm for congenital heart disease in children[J]. Computer science, 2021, 48(6): 210-214.)
[45] TIKHONOVA E, KIRILLOVA O. Citation culture: citing authors behaviour vs. trust in research results[J]. Science editor and publisher, 2023, 7(2): 166-181.
[46] DUYX B, URLINGS M, SWAEN G, et al. Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct?[J]. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2022, 115(1): 31-35.
[47] FANELLI D. Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(2): 701-709.
[48] 杨卫, 刘细文, 黄金霞, 等. 构筑开放科学行动路线图把握开放科学发展机遇[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2023, 38(6): 783-794. (YANG W, LIU X W, HUANG J X, et al. Building roadmap for open science action:seizing global development opportunities[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023, 38(6): 783-794.)
[49] 贺颖, 徐小然. 基于特征数据的开放式同行评议关键因素的实证分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2022, 33(8): 1041-1045. (HE Y, XU X R. Empirical research on key factors of open peer review: based on characteristic data[J]. Chinese journal of scientific and technical, 2022, 33(8): 1041-1045.)
[50] 心理学开放科学苏州倡议[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(5): 720. (Open Science Suzhou Initiative in Psychology[J]. Studies of psychology and behavior, 2023, 21(5): 720.)
[51] Reproducibility and replicability in science national academies[EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/reproducibility-and-replicability-in-science.
