As the Archive for the Psychology of Religion transitions to the SAGE publishing house, this editorial outlines the current vision and principles guiding the way forward. This includes a strong emphasis on publishing work that demonstrates transparency, precision, breadth, and depth in areas of theory, research, and pedagogy. The primary article types are described and the submission practicalities are addressed.
AppelbaumM.CooperH.KlineR. B.Mayo-WilsonE.NezuA. M.RaoS. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. doi:10.1037/amp0000191
2.
BlohowiakB. B.CohoonJ.de-WitL.EichE.FarachF. J.HasselmanF.… DeHavenA. C. (2018, March28). Badges to acknowledge Open Practices. Retrieved from https://osf.io/tvyxz
3.
Center for Open Science. (2018). Registered reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices. Retrieved from https://cos.io/rr
4.
FiedlerK.SchwarzN. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 46–52. doi:10.1177/1948550615612150
5.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 62–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
6.
JohnL. K.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
7.
KumarS. K. K. (2010). Indian indigenous concepts and perspectives: Developments and future possibilities. In MishraG. (Ed.), Psychology in India, Vol. IV: Theoretical and methodological developments (pp. 93–171). Delhi, India: Pearson Education India.
8.
LevittH. M.BambergM.CreswellJ. W.FrostD. M.JosselsonR.Suárez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report. American Psychologist, 73, 26–46. doi:10.1037/amp0000151
9.
MannheimerS.PientaA.KirilovaD.ElmanC.WutichA. (2017, December21). Addressing the challenges of qualitative data sharing through data repository and library services. Retrieved from http://osf.io/yvhjd
10.
NosekB. A.SimonsohnU.MooreD. A.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P.SallansA.LeBelE. P. (2017, June12). Standard reviewer statement for disclosure of sample, conditions, measures, and exclusions. Retrieved from https://osf.io/hadz3
11.
OSFHome. (2018). Open Science Framework: A scholarly commons to connect the entire research cycle. Retrieved from https://osf.io
12.
StroebeW.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687
13.
WallerN. G.YonceL. J.GroveW. M.FaustD.LenzenwegerM. F. (Eds.). (2013). A Paul Meehl reader: Essays on the practice of scientific psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
