Editorial Into a new decade

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2020). A primer on assessing intelligence in laboratory studies. Intelligence, 80, 101440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Quintana, D. S. (2020). A synthetic dataset primer for the biobehavioural sciences to promote reproducibility and hypothesis-generation. eLIFE,9: e53275. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53275

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Vanpaemel, W., Vermorgen, M., Deriemaecker, L., & Storms, G. (2015). Are we wasting a good crisis? The Availability of Psychological Research Data after the Storm. Collabra, 1(1), Art. 3. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.13

  5. Vines, T. H., Albert, A. Y., Andrew, R. L., Débarre, F., Bock, D. G., Franklin, M. T., … Rennison, D. J. (2014). The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current biology, 24(1), 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Brysbaert.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brysbaert, M., Bakk, Z., Buchanan, E.M. et al. Editorial Into a new decade. Behav Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01497-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Editorial
  • Open science
  • Editorial decision
  • Reliability
  • Validity