Tag Archives: scientific publishing

Are You Registering That? An Interview with Prof. Chris Chambers

There is no panacea for bad science, but if there were, it would certainly resemble Registered Reports. Registered Reports are a novel publishing format in which authors submit only the introduction, methods, and planned analyses without actually having collected the data. Thus, peer-review only focuses on the soundness of the research proposal and is not contingent on the “significance” of the results (Chambers, 2013). In one strike, this simple idea combats publication bias, researchers’ degrees of freedom, makes apparent the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research, and calms the researcher’s mind. There are a number of journals offering Registered Reports, and this is arguable the most important step journals can take to push psychological science forward (see also King et al., 2016). For a detailed treatment of Registered Reports, see here, here, here, and Chambers (2015).

Picture of Chris Chambers

Chris Chambers is the initiator of the “Registration Revolution”, the man behind the movement. He has introduced Registered Reports into psychology, has written publicly about the issues we currently face in psychology, and has recently published a book called the “7 Deadly Sins of Psychology” in which he masterfully exposes the shortcomings of current academic customs and inspires change. He is somebody who cares deeply about the future of our field, and he is actively changing it for the better.

We are very excited to present you with an interview with Chris Chambers. How did he become a researcher? Where did he get the idea of Registered Reports from? What is his new book about, and what can we learn from hard sciences such as physics? Find out below!

Tell us a bit about your background. How did you get into Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience? What is the focus of your research?

Since my teenage years I had been interested in psychology (the Star Trek Next Generation episode “Measure of a Man” left me pondering the mind and consciousness for ages!) but I never really imagined myself as a psychologist or a scientist – those seemed like remote and obscure professions, well out of reach. It wasn’t until the final year of my undergraduate degree that I developed a deep interest in the science of psychology and decided to make a run for it as a career. Applying to do a PhD felt like a very long shot. I have this distinct memory, back in 1999, scrolling down the web page of accepted PhD entrants. I searched in vain for my name among the list of those who had been awarded various prestigious scholarships, and as I neared the bottom I began pondering alternative careers. But then, as if by miracle, there was my name at the end. I was last on the list, the entrant with the lowest successful mark out of the entire cohort. For the next two and half years I tried in vain to replicate a famous US psychologist’s results, and then had to face having this famous psychologist as a negative reviewer of every paper we submitted. One day – about two years into my PhD – my supervisor told me about this grant he’d just been awarded to stimulate people’s brains with electromagnetic fields. He asked if I wanted a job and I jumped at the chance. Finally I could escape Famous Negative Reviewer Who Hated Me! Since then, a large part of my research has been in cognitive neuroscience, with specific interests in attention, consciousness and cognitive control.

You have published an intriguing piece on “physics envy” (here). What can psychology learn from physics, and what can psychologists learn from physicists?

Psychology can learn many lessons from physics and other physical sciences. The physics community hinges reputation on transparency and reproducibility – if your results can’t be repeated then they (and you) won’t be believed. They routinely publish their work in the form of pre-prints and have successfully shaped their journals to fit with their working culture. Replication studies are normal practice, and when conducted are seen as a compliment to the importance of the original work rather than (as in psychology) a threat or insult to the original researcher. Physicists I talk to are bemused by our obsession with impact factors, h-indices, and authorship order – they see these as shallow indicators for bureaucrats and the small minded. There are career pressures in physics, no doubt, but at the risk of over-simplifying, it seems to me that the incentives for individual scientists are in broad alignment with the scientific objectives of the community. In psychology, these incentives stand in opposition.

One of your areas of interest is in the public understanding of science. Can you provide a brief primer of the psychological ideas within this field of research?

The way scientists communicate with the public is crucial in so many ways and a large part of my work. In terms of outreach, one of my goals on the Guardian science blog network is to help bridge this gap. We’ve also been exploring science communication in our research. Through the Insciout project we’ve been investigating the extent to which press releases about science and health contribute to hype in news reporting, and the evidence suggests that most exaggeration we see in the news begins life in press releases issued by universities and academic journals. We’ve also been looking at how readers interpret common phrases used in science and health reporting, such as “X can cause Y” or “X increases risk of Y”, to determine whether the wording used in news headlines leads readers to conclude that results are more deterministic (i.e. causal) than the study methods allow. Our hope is that this work can lead to evidence-based guidelines for preparation of science and health PR material by universities and journals.

I’m also very interested in mechanisms for promoting evidence-based policy more generally. Here in the UK I’m working with several colleagues to establish a new Evidence Information Service for connecting research academics and policy makers, with the aim to provide parliamentarians with a rapid source of advice and consultation. We’re currently undertaking a large-scale survey of how the academic community feels about this concept – the survey can be completed here.

You have recently published a book titled “The 7 Deadly Sins of Psychology”. What are the sins and how can psychologists redeem themselves?

The sins, in order, are bias, hidden flexibility, unreliability, data hoarding, corruptibility, internment and bean counting. At the broadest level, the path to redemption will require wide adoption of open research practices such as a study preregistration, open data and open materials, and wholesale revision of the systems we use to determine career progression, such as authorship rank, journal rank, and grant capture. We also need to establish robust provisions for detecting and deterring academic fraud while at the same time instituting genuine protections for whistleblowers.

How did you arrive at the idea of Registered Reports for Psychology? What was the initial response from journals that you have approached? How has the perception of Registered Reports changed over the years?

After many years of being trained in the current system, I basically just had enough of publication bias and the “academic game” in psychology – a game where publishing neat stories in prestigious journals and attracting large amounts of grant funding is more rewarded than being accurate and honest. I reached a breaking point (which I write about in the book) and decided that I was either going to do something else with my life or try to change my environment. I opted for the latter and journal-based preregistration – what later became known as Registered Reports – seemed like the best way to do it. The general concept behind Registered Reports had been suggested, on and off, for about 50 years but nobody had yet managed to implement it. I got extremely lucky in being able to push it into the mainstream at the journal Cortex, thanks in no small part to the support of chief editor Sergio Della Sala.

The initial response from journals was quite cautious. Many were – and still are – concerned about whether Registered Reports will somehow produce lower quality science or reduce their impact factors. In reality, they produce what in my view are among the highest quality empirical papers you will see in their respective fields – they are rigorously reviewed with transparent, high-powered methods, and the evidence also suggests that they are cited well above average. Over the last four years we’ve seen more than 50 journals adopt the format (including in some prominent journals such as Nature Human Behaviour and BMC Biology) and the community has warmed up to them as published examples have begun appearing. Many journals are now seeing them as a strength and a sign that they value reproducible open science. They are realising that adding Registered Reports to their arsenal is a small and simple step for attracting high-quality research, and that having them widely available is potentially a giant leap for science as a whole.

Max Planck, the famous German Physicist, once said that science advances a funeral at a time. Let’s hope that is not true —  we simply don’t have the time for that. What skills, ideas, and practices should the next generation of psychological researchers be familiar and competent with? What further resources can you recommend?

I agree – there is no time to wait for funerals, especially in our unstable political climate. The world is changing quickly and science needs to adapt. I believe young scientists can protect themselves in two ways: first, by learning open science and robust methods now. Journals and funders are becoming increasingly cognisant of the need to ensure greater reproducibility and many of the measures that are currently optional will inevitably become mandatory. So make sure you learn how to archive your data, or preregister your protocol. Learn R and become familiar with the underlying philosophy of frequentist and Bayesian hypothesis testing. Do you understand what a p value is? What power is and isn’t? What a Bayes factor tells you? My second recommendation is to recognise these tumultuous times in science for what they are: a political revolution. It’s easy for more vulnerable members of a community to be crushed during a revolution, especially if isolated, so young scientists need to unionise behind open science to ensure that their voices are heard. Form teams to help shape the reforms that you want to see in the years ahead, whether that’s Registered Reports or open data and materials in peer review, or becoming a COS Ambassador. One day, not long from now, all this will be yours so make sure the system works for you and your community.

Fabian Dablander

Fabian Dablander is currently finishing his thesis in Cognitive Science at the University of Tübingen and Daimler Research & Development on validating driving simulations. He is interested in innovative ways of data collection, Bayesian statistics, open science, and effective altruism. You can find him on Twitter @fdabl.

More Posts - Website


Meet the Authors

Do you wish to publish your work but don’t know how to get started? We asked some of our student authors, Janne Hellerup Nielsen, Dimitar Karadzhov, and Noelle Sammon, to share their experience of getting published.

Janne Hellerup Nielsen is a psychology graduate from Copenhagen University. Currently, she works in the field of selection and recruitment within the Danish Defence. She is the first author of the research article “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among Danish Soldiers 2.5 Years after Military Deployment in Afghanistan: The Role of Personality Traits as Predisposing Risk Factors”. Prior to this publication, she had no experience with publishing or peer review but she decided to submit her research to JEPS because “it is a peer reviewed journal and the staff at JEPS are very helpful, which was a great help during the editing and publishing process.”

Dimitar Karadzhov moved to Glasgow, United Kingdom to study psychology (bachelor of science) at the University of Glasgow. He completed his undergraduate degree in 2014 and he is currently completing a part-time master of science in global mental health at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of “Assessing Resilience in War-Affected Children and Adolescents: A Critical Review”. Prior to this publication, he had no experience with publishing or peer review. Now having gone through the publication process, he recommends fellow students to submit their work because “it is a great research and networking experience.”

Noelle Sammon has an honors degree in business studies. She returned to study in university in 2010 and completed a higher diploma in psychology in the National University of Ireland, Galway. She is currently completing a master’s degree in applied psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. She plans to pursue a career in clinical psychology. She is the first author of the research article “The Impact of Attention on Eyewitness Identification and Change Blindness”. Noelle had some experience with the publication process while previously working as a research assistant. She describes her experience with JEPS as follows: “[It was] very professional and a nice introduction to publishing research. I found the editors that I was in contact with to be really helpful in offering guidance and support. Overall, the publication process took approximately 10 months from start to finish but having had the opportunity to experience this process, I would encourage other students to publish their research.”

How did the research you published come about?

Janne: “During my psychology studies, I had an internship at a research center in the Danish Defence. Here I was a part of a big prospective study regarding deployed soldiers and their psychological well-being after homecoming. I was so lucky to get to use the data from the research project to conduct my own studies regarding personality traits and the development of PTSD. I’ve always been interested in differential psychology—for example, why people manage the same traumatic experiences differently. Therefore, it was a great opportunity to do research within the field of personality traits and the development of PTSD, and even to do so with some greatly experienced supervisors, Annie and Søren.”

Dimitar: “In my final year of the bachelor of science degree in psychology, I undertook a critical review module. My assigned supervisor was liberal enough and gave me complete freedom to choose the topic I would like to write about. I then browsed a few The Psychologist editions I had for inspiration and was particularly interested in the area of resilience from a social justice perspective. Resilience is a controversial and fluid concept, and it is key to recovery from traumatic events such as natural disasters, personal trauma, war, terrorism, etc. It originates from biomedical sciences and it was fascinating to explore how such a concept had been adopted and researched by the social and humanitarian sciences. I was intrigued to research the similarities between biological resilience of human and non-human animals and psychological resilience in the face of extremely traumatic experiences such as war. To add an extra layer of complexity, I was fascinated by how the most vulnerable of all, children and adolescents, conceptualize, build, maintain, and experience resilience. From a researcher’s perspective, one of the biggest challenges is to devise and apply methods of inquiry in order to investigate the concept of resilience in the most valid, reliable, and culturally appropriate manner. The quantitative–qualitative dyad was a useful organizing framework for my work and it was interesting to see how it would fit within the resilience discourse.”

Noelle: “The research piece was my thesis project for the higher diploma (HDIP). I have always had an interest in forensic psychology. Moreover, while attending the National University of Ireland, Galway as part of my HDIP, I studied forensic psychology. This got me really interested in eyewitness testimony and the overwhelming amount of research highlighting the problematic reliability with it.”

What did you enjoy most in your research and what did you find difficult?

Janne: “There is a lot of editing and so forth when you publish your research, but then again it really makes sense because you have to be able to communicate the results of your research out to the public. To me, that is one of the main purposes of research: to be able to share the knowledge that comes out of it.”

Dimitar: “[I enjoyed] my familiarization with conflicting models of resilience (including biological models), with the origins and evolution of the concept, and with the qualitative framework for investigation of coping mechanisms in vulnerable, deprived populations. In the research process, the most difficult part was creating a coherent piece of work that was very informative and also interesting and readable, and relevant to current affairs and sociopolitical processes in low- and middle-income countries. In the publication process, the most difficult bit was ensuring my work adhered to the publication standards of the journal and addressing the feedback provided at each stage of the review process within the time scale requested.”

Noelle: “I enjoyed developing the methodology to test the research hypothesis and then getting the opportunity to test it. [What I found difficult was] ensuring the methodology would manipulate the variables required.”

How did you overcome these difficulties?

Janne: “[By] staying focused on the goal of publishing my research.”

Dimitar: “With persistence, motivation, belief, and a love for science! And, of course, with the fantastic support from the JEPS publication staff.”

Noelle: “I conducted a pilot using a sample of students asking them to identify any problems with materials or methodology that may need to be altered.”

What did you find helpful when you were doing your research and writing your paper?

Janne: “It was very important for me to get competent feedback from experienced supervisors.”

Dimitar: “Particularly helpful was reading systematic reviews, meta-analyses, conceptual papers, and methodological critique.”

Noelle: “I found my supervisor to be very helpful when conducting my research. In relation to the write-up of the paper, I found that having peers and non-psychology friends read and review my paper helped ensure that it was understandable, especially for lay people.”

Finally, here are some words of wisdom from our authors.

Janne: “Don’t think you can’t do it. It requires some hard work, but the effort is worth it when you see your research published in a journal.”

Dimitar: “Choose a topic you are truly passionate about and be prepared to explore the problem from multiple perspectives, and don’t forget about the ethical dimension of every scientific inquiry. Do not be afraid to share your work with others, look for feedback, and be ready to receive feedback constructively.”

Noelle: “When conducting research it is important to pick an area of research that you are interested in and really refine the research question being asked. Also, if you are able to get a colleague or peer to review it for you, do so.”

We hope our authors have inspired you to go ahead and make that first step towards publishing your research. We welcome your submissions anytime! Our publication guidelines can be viewed here. We also prepared a manual for authors that we hope will make your life easier. If you do have questions, feel free to get in touch at journal@efpsa.org.

This post was edited by Altan Orhon.

Leonor Agan

Leonor is a postgraduate student at the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (University of Edinburgh), pursuing a MSc in Neuroimaging for Research. She holds a BSc in Psychology from the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines and a BA in Psychology from Maynooth University in Ireland.  She worked as a Research Assistant in Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Complex and Adaptive Systems Laboratory (University College Dublin), and Psychology Department (University College Dublin). Her research interests include cognition, memory, and neuroimaging techniques, specifically diffusion MRI and its applications in disease. She is also an Editor of the Journal of European Psychology Students. Find her on Twitter @leonoragan and link in with her.

More Posts


Most frequent APA mistakes at a glance

APA-guidelines, don’t we all love them? As an example, take one simple black line used to separate words – the hyphen: not only do you have to check whether a term needs a hyphen or a blank space will suffice, you also have to think about the different types of hyphens (Em-dash, En-dash, minus, and hyphen). Yes, it is not that much fun. And at JEPS we often get the question: why do we even have to adhere to those guidelines?


Common APA Errors; Infographic taken from the EndNote Blog http://bit.ly/1uWDqnO

The answer is rather simple: The formatting constraints imposed by journals enable for the emphasis to be placed on the manuscript’s content during the review process. The fact that all manuscripts submitted share the same format allows for the Reviewers to concentrate on the content without being distracted by unfamiliar and irregular formatting and reporting styles.

The Publication Manual counts an impressive 286 pages and causes quite some confusion. In JEPS, we have counted the most frequent mistakes in manuscripts submitted to us – data that the EndNote-blog has translated into this nice little graphic.

Here you can find some suggestions on how to avoid these mistakes in the first place.


American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vainre, M. (2011). Common mistakes made in APA style. JEPS Bulletin, retrieved from http://blog.efpsa.org/2011/11/20/common-mistakes-made-in-apa-style/

Katharina Brecht

Katharina Brecht

Aside from her role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of European Psychology Students, Katharina is currently pursuing her PhD at the University of Cambridge. Her research interests revolve around the evolution and development of social cognition.

More Posts


Why We Publish: The Past, Present, and Future of Science Communication


Why We Publish-Recovered
Have you ever wondered which scientific journal was the first of its kind? Or why there are scientific publications at all? In this post you will learn how far we have come since the first journals, what it means to communicate science today and what the future might hold for traditional journals and publishers.

Probably these issues crossed your mind, but you never found the time to dig deeper. I don’t blame you. It’s tough to be a young and upcoming researcher these days. Today’s advances in scientific literature are so fast-paced that it can be hard to keep up, let alone ask such remote questions.

At the same time I think you will agree that it may be useful (or, just plain interesting) to have a broader perspective on how scientific journals came to be and how this might help us understand today’s publishing landscape. This article will guide you through the different stages of science communication, going back to ancient civilizations, the invention of the printing press, all the way to a present where to “publish or perish” is the name of the game and restrictions in the access to science are an harsh reality. Continue reading

Pedro Almeida

Pedro Almeida

Pedro Almeida is a graduate student and research assistant at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. His main research interests are evolutionary psychology and the intersection between marketing and psychology. Previously, he worked as an Editor for the Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS).

More Posts - Website