**The Transparent Psi Project** ------------------------------- ---------- The overall aim of our project is to develop best-practice methodologies that would empower researchers to conduct highly credible studies through verifiable trustworthiness. The credibility enhancing features we are working with include: 1) Expert **Consensus Design** to derive the final pre-registered study protocol, 2) **Pilot study** to identify any inconsistencies in the protocol 3) **Pre-registered**, and **registered report** format 4) Video recorded **trial sessions** to demonstrate that laboratories and experimenters can carry out the study protocol as intended 5) **real-time data publication pipeline**, real-time born open data 6) **IT validation** to verify the validity of data collection system before the study goes live 7) **External research audit** to assess protocol delivery and data integrity ---------- **Rationale** Recent findings on the lack of reproducibility of important psychological experiments and growing evidence for a systematic positive bias in the published research reports brought about a ‘confidence crisis’ in psychological science. Sources of this systematic bias are often called questionable research practices. The possibility of [Questionable Research Practices (QRPs)][1] is detrimental for the progress of science, because unexpected results can be dismissed by (unprovable or disprovable) claims of QRPs or sloppy protocol execution, which solidifies the status quo. The mistrust in research reports is especially burdensome on controversial research areas and in cases of studies reporting unexpected findings. The primary solution for restoring confidence is to make every stage of the research and publication process transparent. Recently, there has been a rise in initiatives for transparency, such as - encouragement of pre-registration of experiments by professional and governmental agencies - making reports available to a wider audience through self-archiving and open access publication, - open publishing platforms, - data repositories, - and initiatives for large scale multi-lab replications Furthermore, [best practice guidelines][2] have been set up to further improve credibility and integrity of research. However, to truly eliminate QRPs, another innovation is in order which will make the study process itself fully transparent. **Approach** In our present proposal, we aim to implement a methodology that improves the acceptability and credibility of research reports by seeking peer consensus on the study design and eliminating the possibility for QRPs. We intend to utilize two key innovations to achieve these goals: 1) Study methodology will be established by **consensus of a large group of stakeholders** on the field 2) The research will be fully transparent including the study process, which will be achieved through a **real-time data publication pipeline**, making the data publically accessable as it is collected. These methods will be combined with other best practices on the field to ensure credibility such as - **Pilot study**, to identify any inconsistencies in the protocol - **Pre-registered**, and **registered report** format - Video recorded **trial sessions** to demonstrate that laboratories and experimenters can carry out the study protocol as intended - **real-time data publication pipeline**, real-time born open data - **IT validation** to verify the validity of data collection system before the study goes live - **External research audit** to assess protocol delivery and data integrity We will implement this innovative methodology around a large scale replication of Bem’s (2011) ‘experiment 1’. [Here is a link to a description of Bem's experiment from the original manuscript][3]. Our approach has the potential to improve the credibility and acceptability of experimental psychology findings in general. And can also lead to better acceptability of parapsychology research in particular, because, should anomalous findings be demonstrated, they will no longer be dismissible based on claims of QRPs, inappropriate study design, or poor execution. *This project will set quality standards and best practice guidelines for future research carried out not only in the field of parapsychology, but also in psychological science in general.* Links to study components: [Stage 1: Consensus Design][4] [Stage 2: Replication Study][5] **Funding** The research program is funded by the Bial Foundation. ![Bial Foundation logo][6] [1]: https://osf.io/jk2zf/wiki/Questionable%20Research%20Practices/ [2]: https://osf.io/jk2zf/wiki/Best%20practice%20guidelines%20to%20improve%20research%20integrity/ [3]: https://osf.io/bjxg2/ [4]: https://osf.io/he8sb/wiki/home/ [5]: https://osf.io/rh5hb/wiki/home/ [6]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/533155cae4b08b6d16d34ec4/t/555c9b76e4b0e543f2e387b2/1432132471283/?format=300w