Psychologists Are Open to Change, yet Wary of Rules

  • Fuchs H
  • Jenny M
  • Fiedler S
  • 181


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 12


    Citations of this article.


Psychologists must change the way they conduct and report their research—this notion has been the topic of much debate in recent years. One article recently published in Psychological Science proposing six requirements for researchers concerning data collection and reporting practices as well as four guidelines for reviewers aimed at improving the publication process has recently received much attention (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). We surveyed 1,292 psychologists to address two questions: Do psychologists support these concrete changes to data collection, reporting, and publication practices, and if not, what are their reasons? Respondents also indicated the percentage of print and online journal space that should be dedicated to novel studies and direct replications as well as the percentage of published psychological research that they believed would be confirmed if direct replications were conducted. We found that psychologists are generally open to change. Five requirements for researchers and three guidelines for reviewers were supported as standards of good practice, whereas one requirement was even supported as a publication condition. Psychologists appear to be less in favor of mandatory conditions of publication than standards of good practice. We conclude that the proposal made by Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011) is a starting point for such standards.

Author-supplied keywords

  • publication bias
  • publication practices
  • replication

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • Heather M. Fuchs

  • Mirjam Jenny

  • Susann Fiedler

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free