DOI work
Fetched
Post
crossref
C. Costa, R. Pezzetta, E. Toffalini, M. Grassi, G Cona, C Miniussi, P. J. Bauer, S. Borgomaneri, et al.
(2025).
Enhancing the quality and reproducibility of research: Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Studies - The PECANS statement for human studies.
Behavior Research Methods, 57(7), 182.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC.
- Publication date
-
30 May 2025
- Identifier
-
10.3758/s13428-025-02705-3
- Authors
-
C. Costa,
R. Pezzetta,
E. Toffalini,
M. Grassi,
G Cona,
C Miniussi,
P. J. Bauer,
S. Borgomaneri,
M. Brysbaert,
C. D. Chambers,
N. Edelstyn,
A. Eerland,
S. J. Gilbert,
M. A. Nitsche,
R. A. Poldrack,
A. Puce,
K. R. Ridderinkhof,
T. Y. Swaab,
C. Umiltà,
M. Wiener,
C. Scarpazza,
on behalf of the PECANS Extended Working Group,
Salvatore M. Aglioti,
Georg W. Alpers,
Ettore Ambrosini,
Giorgio Arcara,
Alessio Avenanti,
Valentina Bambini,
Linden J. Ball,
Fabiana Battista,
Silvia Benavides-Varela,
Aaron S. Benjamin,
Mark A. Bellgrove,
Nadia Bolognini,
Mario Bonato,
Sabrina Brigadoi,
Louise A. Brown Nicholls,
Erin M. Buchanan,
Francesca Burgio,
Christian Beste,
Krista Byers-Heinlein,
Giuseppe Carrà,
James F. Cavanagh,
Stephen D. Christman,
Alessandro D’Ausilio,
Arnaud D’Argembeau,
Daniela D’Imperio,
Theresa M. Desrochers,
Malte Elson,
Jan B. Engelmann,
Ulrich Ettinger,
Vanessa Era,
Tommaso Feraco,
Gereon R. Fink,
Martina Fusaro,
Gabriele Fusco,
Gareth M. Gaskell,
Andreina Giustiniani,
Alessandro Guida,
Ahmad R. Hariri,
Derek Houston,
Mark W. Howe,
Scott A. Huettel,
Yi Huang,
Roxane J. Itier,
Laura Jobson,
Philipp Kanske,
Swathi Kiran,
Claus Lamm,
Victor A. F. Lamme,
Daniel Lakens,
Tiziana Lanciano,
Christopher R. Madan,
Ivan Mangiulli,
Dante Mantini,
Fabio Masina,
Jason B. Mattingley,
Randy J. McCarthy,
Robert D. McIntosh,
Giulia Melis,
Luca Menghini,
Vladimir Miskovic,
Simone Migliore,
Maria Montefinese,
Klaus Oberauer,
Suzanne Oosterwijk,
Maria S. Panasiti,
Lorenzo Però,
Bradley S. Peterson,
Ana P. Pinheiro,
Giorgia Ponsi,
Giuseppina Porciello,
Athanassios Protopapas,
Maria Pyasik,
Vincent M. Reid,
Walter Schaeken,
Michael Schepisi,
Laura D. Scherer,
Michele Scandola,
Alexander J. Shackman,
Julia Simner,
Jacqueline C. Snow,
Alessandra S. Souza,
Joel S. Snyder,
Denes Szucs,
Benjamin A. Tabak,
Emma C. Tecwyn,
Cynthia K. Thompson,
Lisa Toffoli,
Mattie Tops,
Loren L. Toussaint,
Elizabeth W. Twamley,
Lucina Q. Uddin,
Markus Ullsperger,
Antonino Vallesi,
Anna E. Van’t Veer,
Don Van Ravenzwaaij,
Carmelo Vázquez,
Simine Vazire,
Essi Viding,
Eric M. Wassermann,
Sarah Weigelt,
Christina E. Wierenga,
Melody Wiseheart,
Martijn E. Wokke,
Steven P. Woods,
Naohide Yamamoto,
Jeffrey M. Zacks,
Laura Zapparoli,
Cristina Zogmaister
- Source
- Behavior Research Methods
- Details
- 57(7), 182
- Reference type
- article
- Publisher
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Metadata source
- crossref
Abstract
Abstract Are scientific papers providing all essential details necessary to ensure the replicability of study protocols? Are authors effectively conveying study design, data analysis, and the process of drawing inferences from their results? These represent only a fraction of the pressing questions that cognitive psychology and neuropsychology face in addressing the “crisis of confidence.” This crisis has highlighted numerous shortcomings in the journey from research to publication. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PECANS (Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive And Neuropsychological Studies), a comprehensive checklist tool designed to guide the planning, execution, evaluation, and reporting of experimental research. PECANS emerged from a rigorous consensus-building process through the Delphi method. We convened a panel of international experts specialized in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology research practices. Through two rounds of iterative voting and a proof-of-concept phase, PECANS evolved into its final form. The PECANS checklist is intended to serve various stakeholders in the fields of cognitive sciences and neuropsychology, including: (i) researchers seeking to ensure and enhance reproducibility and rigor in their research; (ii) journal editors and reviewers assessing the quality of reports; (iii) ethics committees and funding agencies; (iv) students approaching methodology and scientific writing. PECANS is a versatile tool intended not only to improve the quality and transparency of individual research projects but also to foster a broader culture of rigorous scientific inquiry across the academic and research community.
Study authors in this cited reference