​​The responsible conduct of research (RCR) is crucial for the health of the research ecosystem: high quality research should lead to more credible findings and increase public trust. However, the dimensions and responsibilities that make up RCR differ across disciplines, who together can learn from one another to ensure rigorous, transparent, and reliable research and foster healthier research culture.

 

Bridging this gap, in their Stage 1 Registered Report, Field and colleagues (2024) outline their plans for a large-scale Delphi study to evaluate academics' perceived levels of importance of the most crucial elements of RCR and how these align and differ across disciplines. First, they plan to assemble a Delphi panel of RCR experts across multiple disciplines who will evaluate a list of RCR dimensions to suggest any additions. Then, these same panellists will judge each RCR dimension on its importance within their discipline of expertise, with iterative rounds of ratings until stability is reached. In this latter phase, the goal is to probe which items are more broadly appreciated by the sample (i.e., those that are perceived as a universally valuable RCR practice), versus which might be more discipline specific. The findings will present the median importance ratings and categories of response agreement across the entire panel and between different disciplines. Finally, to contextualise these findings, the team will analyse qualitative findings from open-ended text responses with a simple form of thematic analysis. From this, the team will develop a framework, using the identified RCR dimensions, that reflects the needs of the academic community. 

 

By mapping a broader multidisciplinary perspective on RCR, this research will fill the gap between the two extremes that existing conceptualisations of RCR tend to fall under: high-level frameworks designed to be universally applicable across all disciplines (e.g., the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity) and prescriptive guides tailored to the practical instruction of researchers within a specific discipline or field (e.g., RCR training designed for members of a university department). The hope is that this will stimulate a more nuanced understanding and discussion of cross-disciplinary conceptions of RCR.

 

Five expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommenders judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). 

 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xmnu5
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.  
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

References
 

Field, S. M., Thompson, J., van Drimmelen, T., Ferrar, J., Penders, B., de Rijcke, S., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xmnu5

Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.

 

In the current study, Dujols et al. (2024) assessed the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The project consists of a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations, in a sample of 183 French university students.

 

The authors assessed the longitudinal measurement invariance and test-restest reliability of the STRAQ-1. Longitudinal measurement invariance across two time points was only found for two of the four subscales. Similarly, test-retest reliability varied by subscale, ranging from poor to good. Taken together, the study suggests caution in using the STRAQ-1 scale as a reliable measure of physical relationships. The study highlights the need for continued assessment of the reliability of widely used measures, particularly reliability over time, and serves as a model for a rigorous analytic approach for doing so.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of comments from two reviewers and the second round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question was accessed by the authors prior to Stage 1 IPA (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received) but the authors certify that they had not observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2024). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/392g6