AllenC.MehlerD. M. A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology, 17(5), Article e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
Fletcher-WatsonS.BölteS.CromptonC. J.JonesD.LaiM.-C.MandyW.PellicanoL.StahmerA.TaylorJ.MandellD. (2021). Publishing standards for promoting excellence in autism research. Autism, 25(6), 1501–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211019830
8.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
9.
GreenwaldA. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157
10.
HobsonH.LindenA.CraneL.KalandadzeT. (2023). Towards reproducible and respectful autism research: Combining open and participatory autism research practices. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 106, 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102196
11.
HobsonH.PooleD.PearsonA.Fletcher-WatsonS. (2022). Opening up autism research: Bringing open research methods to our field. Autism, 26(5), 1011–1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221105385
12.
HobsonH.SedgewickF.ManningC.Fletcher-WatsonS. (2021). Registered Reports in autism research—A letter to journals. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PCWBN
KarhulahtiV.-M.BranneyP.SiutilaM.SyedM. (2023). A primer for choosing, designing and evaluating Registered Reports for qualitative methods. Open Research Europe, 3, 22. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15532.2
MaizeyL.TzavellaL. (2019). Barriers and solutions for early career researchers in tackling the reproducibility crisis in cognitive neuroscience. Cortex, 113, 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.12.015
18.
McKiernanE. C.BourneP. E.BrownC. T.BuckS.KenallA.LinJ.McDougallD.NosekB. A.RamK.SoderbergC. K.SpiesJ. R.ThaneyK.UpdegroveA.WooK. H.YarkoniT. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, Article e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
19.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
ScheelA. M.SchijenM. R. M. J.LakensD. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007467. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
22.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
23.
SoderbergC. K.ErringtonT. M.SchiavoneS. R.BottesiniJ.ThornF. S.VazireS.EsterlingK. M.NosekB. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of Registered Reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4