Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

A Meta-Analytic Test of Redundancy and Relative Importance of the Dark Triad and Five-Factor Model of Personality.

We examined the relationships between Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-the three traits of the Dark Triad (DT)-and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. The review identified 310 independent samples drawn from 215 sources and yielded information pertaining to global trait relationships and facet-level relationships. We used meta-analysis to examine (a) the bivariate relations between the DT and the five global traits and 30 facets of the FFM, (b) the relative importance of each of the FFM global traits in predicting DT, and (c) the relationship between the DT and FFM facets identified in translational models of narcissism and psychopathy. These analyses identified consistent and theoretically meaningful associations between the DT traits and the facets of the FFM. The five traits of the FFM, in a relative importance analysis, accounted for much of the variance in Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, respectively, and facet-level analyses identified specific facets of each FFM trait that were consistently associated with narcissism (e.g., angry/hostility, modesty) and psychopathy (e.g., straightforwardness, deliberation). The FFM explained nearly all of the variance in psychopathy (R(2) c = .88) and a substantial portion of the variance in narcissism (R(2) c = .42).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work?

As growth mindset interventions increase in scope and popularity, scientists and policymakers are asking: Are these interventions effective? To answer this question properly, the field needs to understand the meaningful heterogeneity in effects. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we focused on two key moderators with adequate data to test: Subsamples expected to benefit most and implementation fidelity. We also specified a process model that can be generative for theory. We included articles published between 2002 (first mindset intervention) through the end of 2020 that reported an effect for a growth mindset intervention, used a randomized design, and featured at least one of the qualifying outcomes. Our search yielded 53 independent samples testing distinct interventions. We reported cumulative effect sizes for multiple outcomes (i.e., mindsets, motivation, behavior, end results), with a focus on three primary end results (i.e., improved academic achievement, mental health, or social functioning). Multilevel metaregression analyses with targeted subsamples and high fidelity for academic achievement yielded, d = 0.14, 95% CI [.06, .22]; for mental health, d = 0.32, 95% CI [.10, .54]. Results highlighted the extensive variation in effects to be expected from future interventions. Namely, 95% prediction intervals for focal effects ranged from -0.08 to 0.35 for academic achievement and from 0.07 to 0.57 for mental health. The literature is too nascent for moderators for social functioning, but average effects are d = 0.36, 95% CI [.03, .68], 95% PI [-.50, 1.22]. We conclude with a discussion of heterogeneity and the limitations of meta-analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The "Goldilocks Zone": (Too) many confidence intervals in tests of mediation just exclude zero.

Questionable research practices (QRPs) can occur whenever one result is favored over another, and tests of mediation are no exception. Given mediation's ubiquity and importance to both theory and practice, QRPs in tests of mediation pose a serious threat to the advancement of psychology. We investigate this issue through the introduction of a straightforward means of detecting the presence and magnitude of QRPs in tests of mediation and validate this methodology with a series of sensitivity tests and simulations. We then apply this method to 2,569 tests of mediation published in five leading psychology journals in 2018 and 2019. We find that despite most hypothesized tests of mediation being likely underpowered, most (76%) were nevertheless supported. Furthermore, confidence intervals (CIs) that just barely exclude zero are 3.6 to 4.4 times as prevalent as those CIs that just barely include zero. We also find a number of study- and test-level factors, such as whether the test of mediation was hypothesized, explain both whether the CI excluded zero (odds ratio [OR] = 17.87, p < .001) as well as the CI's proximity to zero (b = .27, p < .001). In addition, other factors, most notably sample size, do predict the CI's proximity to zero (γ = .00, p < .001), but surprisingly do not predict the CI's exclusion of zero (OR = .99, p = .803). We conclude with actionable QRP curtailment strategies so that both, academics and practitioners, can have greater and well-founded confidence in tests of mediation in psychological research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Getting along to get ahead: The role of social context in tournament promotion and reward systems.

Tournament theory posits that some organizations are modeled after sports tournaments whereby individuals are incentivized to compete and win against other members of the organization. A persistent criticism of tournament theory is that rank-order success of employees is entirely dependent on non-interacting or at least non-cooperating entities. To address what part, if any, cooperation plays in competitive tournaments, this study examines the role of social networks in tournament-style promotion and reward systems. Specifically, we seek to identify the importance of social relationships, such as group dissimilarity, initial tie formation, and tie strength in predicting tournament success. Bringing two largely independent research streams together (one focused on cooperation and one framed around competition), we examine how individuals' performance interacts with their social relationships-their social networks-to influence their chances of winning a tournament. Using the Survivor television series, we analyze the behaviors of 535 interacting contestants across 30 tournaments. In general, the findings help to illustrate how performance and social networks predict tournament advancement. Interestingly, we find that group dissimilarity based on gender, race, and age, largely does not play a role in advancement in the tournaments. Further, the strength of ties fails to mediate between variables such as group dissimilarity and initial tie formation. We conclude by discussing future directions for theoretical and practical exploration of tournament-style promotion systems. Recommendations include continuing to explore and test the role of social dynamics in compensation and promotion systems.

From alpha to omega and beyond! A look at the past, present, and (possible) future of psychometric soundness in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

The psychometric soundness of measures has been a central concern of articles published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) since the inception of the journal. At the same time, it isn't clear that investigators and reviewers prioritize psychometric soundness to a degree that would allow one to have sufficient confidence in conclusions regarding constructs. The purposes of the present article are to (a) examine current scale development and evaluation practices in JAP; (b) compare these practices to recommended practices, previous practices, and practices in other journals; and (c) use these comparisons to make recommendations for reviewers, editors, and investigators regarding the creation and evaluation of measures including Excel-based calculators for various indices. Finally, given that model complexity appears to have increased the need for short scales, we offer a user-friendly R Shiny app (https://orgscience.uncc.edu/about-us/resources) that identifies the subset of items that maximize a variety of psychometric criteria rather than merely maximizing alpha. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Author Correction: A consensus-based transparency checklist.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

From Outcome to Process Focus: Fostering a More Robust Psychological Science Through Registered Reports and Results-Blind Reviewing.

A variety of alternative mechanisms, strategies, and "ways of doing" have been proposed for improving the rigor and robustness of published research in the psychological sciences in recent years. In this article, we describe two existing but underused publication models-registered reporting (RR) and results-blind reviewing (RBR)-that we believe would contribute in important ways to improving both the conduct and evaluation of psychological research. We first outline the procedures and distinguishing features of both publication pathways and note their value for promoting positive changes to current scientific practices. We posit that a significant value of RR and RBR is their potential to promote a greater focus on the research process (i.e., how and why research is conducted) relative to research outcomes (i.e., what was observed or concluded from research). We conclude by discussing what we perceive to be five common beliefs about RR and RBR practices and attempt to provide a balanced perspective of the realities likely to be experienced with these systems.

Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition.

Access to data is a critical feature of an efficient, progressive and ultimately self-correcting scientific ecosystem. But the extent to which in-principle benefits of data sharing are realized in practice is unclear. Crucially, it is largely unknown whether published findings can be reproduced by repeating reported analyses upon shared data ('analytic reproducibility'). To investigate this, we conducted an observational evaluation of a mandatory open data policy introduced at the journal Cognition. Interrupted time-series analyses indicated a substantial post-policy increase in data available statements (104/417, 25% pre-policy to 136/174, 78% post-policy), although not all data appeared reusable (23/104, 22% pre-policy to 85/136, 62%, post-policy). For 35 of the articles determined to have reusable data, we attempted to reproduce 1324 target values. Ultimately, 64 values could not be reproduced within a 10% margin of error. For 22 articles all target values were reproduced, but 11 of these required author assistance. For 13 articles at least one value could not be reproduced despite author assistance. Importantly, there were no clear indications that original conclusions were seriously impacted. Mandatory open data policies can increase the frequency and quality of data sharing. However, suboptimal data curation, unclear analysis specification and reporting errors can impede analytic reproducibility, undermining the utility of data sharing and the credibility of scientific findings.

A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective.

We reviewed studies of the Dark Triad (DT) personality traits--Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-and meta-analytically examined their implications for job performance and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Relations among the DT traits and behaviors were extracted from original reports published between 1951 and 2011 of 245 independent samples (N = 43,907). We found that reductions in the quality of job performance were consistently associated with increases in Machiavellianism and psychopathy and that CWB was associated with increases in all 3 components of the DT, but that these associations were moderated by such contextual factors as authority and culture. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the DT explains moderate amounts of the variance in counterproductivity, but not job performance. The results showed that the 3 traits are positively related to one another but are sufficiently distinctive to warrant theoretical and empirical partitioning.