Pre-registration: Weighing costs and benefits for researchers

The neurophysiology of closed-loop auditory stimulation in sleep: A magnetoencephalography study

Closed-loop auditory stimulation (CLAS) is a brain modulation technique in which sounds are timed to enhance or disrupt endogenous neurophysiological events. CLAS of slow oscillation up-states in sleep is becoming a popular tool to study and enhance sleep's functions, as it increases slow oscillations, evokes sleep spindles and enhances memory consolidation of certain tasks. However, few studies have examined the specific neurophysiological mechanisms involved in CLAS, in part because of practical limitations to available tools. To evaluate evidence for possible models of how sound stimulation during brain up-states alters brain activity, we simultaneously recorded electro- and magnetoencephalography in human participants who received auditory stimulation across sleep stages. We conducted a series of analyses that test different models of pathways through which CLAS of slow oscillations may affect widespread neural activity that have been suggested in literature, using spatial information, timing and phase relationships in the source-localized magnetoencephalography data. The results suggest that auditory information reaches ventral frontal lobe areas via non-lemniscal pathways. From there, a slow oscillation is created and propagated. We demonstrate that while the state of excitability of tissue in auditory cortex and frontal ventral regions shows some synchrony with the electroencephalography (EEG)-recorded up-states that are commonly used for CLAS, it is the state of ventral frontal regions that is most critical for slow oscillation generation. Our findings advance models of how CLAS leads to enhancement of slow oscillations, sleep spindles and associated cognitive benefits and offer insight into how the effectiveness of brain stimulation techniques can be improved.

Ten simple rules for socially responsible science

Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.

Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research

BACKGROUND

Preregistration, the open science practice of specifying and registering details of a planned study prior to knowing the data, increases the transparency and reproducibility of research. Large-scale replication attempts for psychological results yielded shockingly low success rates and contributed to an increasing demand for open science practices among psychologists. However, preregistering one's studies is still not the norm in the field. Here, we conducted a study to explore possible reasons for this discrepancy.

METHODS

In a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an online survey assessing attitudes, motivations, and perceived obstacles with respect to preregistration. Respondents (N = 289) were psychological researchers that were recruited through their publications on Web of Science, PubMed, PSYNDEX, and PsycInfo, and preregistrations on OSF Registries. Based on the theory of planned behavior, we predicted that positive attitudes (moderated by the perceived importance of preregistration) as well as a favorable subjective norm and higher perceived behavioral control positively influence researchers' intention to preregister (directional hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expected an influence of research experience on attitudes and perceived motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration (non-directional hypothesis 2). We analyzed these hypotheses with multiple regression models and included preregistration experience as a control variable.

RESULTS

Researchers' attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and the perceived importance of preregistration significantly predicted researchers' intention to use preregistration in the future (see hypothesis 1). Research experience influenced both researchers' attitudes and their perception of motivations to preregister, but not the perception of obstacles (see hypothesis 2). Descriptive reports on researchers' attitudes, motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration are provided.

DISCUSSION

Many researchers had already preregistered and had a rather positive attitude toward preregistration. Nevertheless, several obstacles were identified that may be addressed to improve and foster preregistration.

The past, present, and future of experimental methods in the social sciences

In the midst of the current causal revolution, experimental methods are increasingly embraced across the social sciences. We first document the growth in the use of the experimental method and then overview the current state of the field along with suggestions for future research. Our review covers the core features of experiments that facilitate causal inference, and we offer numerous examples of different experimental designs and the types of research questions they are well-suited to test. We then harmonize popular but differing perspectives on validity in regard to experiments focused on theoretical considerations. Next, we detail a new framework of purposive sampling for social science experiments, suggesting researchers could benefit from moving beyond only two stock choices of representativeness or convenience. We then discuss issues of analysis unique to experimental data before ending with a critical discussion of null findings, open-science practices, social desirability, and other open debates in the experimental methods literature.