Part 2: What to look for in a Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
Summaries and links to eight additional contributions to the special issue of Journal of Health Psychology on the controversial PACE trial.
After failing to intimidate the rest of the editorial board, one member resigned from the Journal of Health Psychology. I am providing a blind review of a paper submitted by her and encourage her to make the paper publicly available in a repository. I recently joined the editorial board of the Journal of Health Psychology. It […]
The authors and Queen Mary University of London shared the data policy in place at the institution, however we consider that aspects of the existing framework impose limitations and conditions not aligned with our editorial policy.
Studies of the brain stimulation method called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could suffer from pervasive questionable research practices.
Requiring original authors to get authorship in re-analyses of their shared data can compromise the independence of how the data are interpreted.
The small amount of data from a clinical trial that was released and reanalyzed suggests that all the data from the trial should be publicly available.
Authors's proposed guidelines for sharing data are intended to protect them from reputational damage arising from reanalysis of their data.
PLOS One corrects undeclared conflicts of interest for 5 articles from Bensen-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine
Mind Body Institute now discloses conflicts of interest for 5 articles for which no conflict was declared.
- Page 1 of 4