<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Kekecs Z</submitter><funding>Fundação Bial</funding><funding>Russian Academic Excellence Project</funding><funding>Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics</funding><pagination>191375</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9890107</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>10(2)</volume><pubmed_abstract>The low reproducibility rate in social sciences has produced hesitation among researchers in accepting published findings at their face value. Despite the advent of initiatives to increase transparency in research reporting, the field is still lacking tools to verify the credibility of research reports. In the present paper, we describe methodologies that let researchers craft highly credible research and allow their peers to verify this credibility. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a multi-laboratory replication of Bem's Experiment 1 (Bem 2011 &lt;i>J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.&lt;/i> &lt;b>100&lt;/b>, 407-425. (doi:10.1037/a0021524)) on extrasensory perception (ESP), which was co-designed by a consensus panel including both proponents and opponents of Bem's original hypothesis. In the st</pubmed_abstract><journal>Royal Society open science</journal><pubmed_title>Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9890107</pmcid><funding_grant_id>Grant nº 122/16</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>‘5-100’</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Liu H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Becker M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Arriaga P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zrubka M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ariga A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Szaszi B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Grassi M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Aczel B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schmidt K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cousineau D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Evans TR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Szecsi P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kekecs Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hall B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kovacs M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wiechert S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bakos BE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Poldver N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tressoldi P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schnepper R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kreegipuu K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roer JP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dubrov D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Giran K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yonemitsu F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Oliveira R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Miller JK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Verschuere B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yamada Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Palfi B</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.</name><description>The low reproducibility rate in social sciences has produced hesitation among researchers in accepting published findings at their face value. Despite the advent of initiatives to increase transparency in research reporting, the field is still lacking tools to verify the credibility of research reports. In the present paper, we describe methodologies that let researchers craft highly credible research and allow their peers to verify this credibility. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a multi-laboratory replication of Bem's Experiment 1 (Bem 2011 &lt;i>J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.&lt;/i> &lt;b>100&lt;/b>, 407-425. (doi:10.1037/a0021524)) on extrasensory perception (ESP), which was co-designed by a consensus panel including both proponents and opponents of Bem's original hypothesis. In the st</description><dates><release>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2023 Feb</publication><modification>2026-03-17T15:54:37.201Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T13:07:26.887Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9890107</accession><cross_references><pubmed>36756055</pubmed><doi>10.1098/rsos.191375</doi></cross_references></HashMap>