<p>Ok, I came across &quot;Open science and reform practices in organizational behavior research over time (2011 to 2019)&quot; (Tenney et al. 2021), a paper which studies some Organization Behaviour journals over the last decade and concludes that there hasn't been widespread adoption of research practice reforms. This paper isn't as comprehensive as I was hoping, but it does help to partially answer my question.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T02:46:11.627Z
try mining the references in royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.200805 maybe? ymmv re the recommendations given (I like them), but the intro describes the state-of-play pretty well with receipts, might be what you're after?
steveLangsford
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T02:50:42.103Z
See also "how hard is cognitive science" https://escholarship.org/content/qt8cr8x1c4/qt8cr8x1c4.pdf describing why it's good that methodological reform is anarchic and piecemeal, contains a formal proof grounding the claim that methodological diversity is a necessity not a luxury. Doesn't deny the value of reforms, but does imply good reforms will be *impossible* to systematize & therefore hard to catalog cleanly
steveLangsford
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-18T12:29:04.427Z
hot off the press: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214211067779
steveLangsford
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T00:35:17.267Z
2022-04-12T00:35:17.267Z
information_parasite
<p>Can anyone point me to academic work that systematically studies how standards and methods have changed in psychology as a response to the replication crisis? Thanks.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-10T23:41:46.017Z
As far as I can work out the transformation within the profession is slow and piecemeal. Interesting question though. We're supposed to show the results of our own investigations into a subject when asking, can you provide any context that you've uncovered? Please also take our [tour] and refer to the [help] for guidance as and when. Welcome to the site.
Jiminy Cricket.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-10T23:52:01.213Z
@ARogueAnt. I've spent an hour or so on Google Scholar looking for context, and I haven't found anything. I found plenty of papers arguing for this or that reform, but so far none that systematically document which reforms have actually taken place.
information_parasite
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T03:24:52.583Z
@information_parasite Research isn't monolithic, and there is no one-size-fits-all strategy to reforms.
Bryan Krause
<methodology><statistics><psychology><reproducible-research><replication>
What work has been done studying methodological reforms in psychology after the replication crisis?
information_parasite
# What work has been done studying methodological reforms in psychology after the replication crisis?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-10)

Can anyone point me to academic work that systematically studies how standards and methods have changed in psychology as a response to the replication crisis? Thanks.

**Tags:** methodology, statistics, psychology, reproducible-research, replication

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: As far as I can work out the transformation within the profession is slow and piecemeal. Interesting question though. We're supposed to show the results of our own investigations into a subject when asking, can you provide any context that you've uncovered? Please also take our [tour] and refer to the [help] for guidance as and when. Welcome to the site.  
> **username_0**: @ARogueAnt. I've spent an hour or so on Google Scholar looking for context, and I haven't found anything. I found plenty of papers arguing for this or that reform, but so far none that systematically document which reforms have actually taken place.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Research isn't monolithic, and there is no one-size-fits-all strategy to reforms.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-04-12. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Ok, I came across "Open science and reform practices in organizational behavior research over time (2011 to 2019)" (Tenney et al. 2021), a paper which studies some Organization Behaviour journals over the last decade and concludes that there hasn't been widespread adoption of research practice reforms. This paper isn't as comprehensive as I was hoping, but it does help to partially answer my question.

Source: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015>

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: try mining the references in royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.200805 maybe? ymmv re the recommendations given (I like them), but the intro describes the state-of-play pretty well with receipts, might be what you're after?  
> **username_3**: See also "how hard is cognitive science" https://escholarship.org/content/qt8cr8x1c4/qt8cr8x1c4.pdf describing why it's good that methodological reform is anarchic and piecemeal, contains a formal proof grounding the claim that methodological diversity is a necessity not a luxury. Doesn't deny the value of reforms, but does imply good reforms will be *impossible* to systematize & therefore hard to catalog cleanly  
> **username_3**: hot off the press: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214211067779  

---

