On reproducibility and replicability: Arguing for open science practices and methodological improvements at the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology

Abstract

Problematisation: In recent years, psychology has been going through a crisis of sorts. Research methods and practices have come under increased scrutiny, with many issues identified as negatively contributing to low replicability and reproducibility of psychological research.Implications: As a consequence, researchers are increasingly called upon to overhaul and improve their research process. Various stakeholders within the scientific community are arguing for more openness and rigor within industrial and organisational (I-O) psychological research. A lack of transparency and openness further fuels criticisms as to the credibility and trustworthiness of I-O psychology which negatively affects the evidence-based practices which it supports. Furthermore, traditional gate-keepers such as grant agencies, professional societies and journals, are adapting their policies, reflecting an effort to curtail these trends.Purpose: The purpose of this opinion paper is, therefore, to stimulate an open dialogue with the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP) contributing authors, its editorial board and readership about the challenges associated with the replication crisis in psychology. Furthermore, it attempts to discuss how the identified issues affect I-O psychology and how these could be managed through open science practices and other structural improvements within the SAJIP.Recommendations: We enumerate several easily implementable open science practices, methodological improvements and editorial policy enhancements to enhance credibility and transparency within the SAJIP. Relying on these, we recommend changes to the current practices that can be taken up by researchers and the SAJIP to improve reproducibility and replicability in I-O psychological science.

The manifestation of the 10 personality aspects amongst the facets of the Basic Traits Inventory

“…Psychology is currently facing challenges related to the replicability of the discipline's findings (Efendic & Van Zyl, 2019). Even though this study provides evidence for the existence of personality aspects, albeit not hierarchical aspects, amongst South African employees, the proposed factor structure must be replicated with larger samples than the one used in the current study before definitive statements are made about the manifestation of the 10 personality aspects amongst the facets of the BTI.…”

Debating the scientific credibility of industrial and organisational psychology: A rebuttal

“…These authors highlighted various systemic causes contributing to the lack of confidence in IOP, ranging from the way in which authors conduct research and process or report results through to how journals, editors and reviewers contribute to such through various editorial processes, policies and practices. Efendic and Van Zyl (2019) briefly demonstrated that these issues are also apparent within SAJIP, highlighting inconsistencies in statistical results reported by authors, that various studies were insufficiently powered, that best-practice guidelines for the reporting of results were mostly only partially followed and that no transparency exists with regard to the research process. In effect, they highlighted that SAJIP's authorship knowingly or unknowingly engages in what Nosek et al (2015Nosek et al ( :1422 call 'questionable research practices', and that the journal is not immune to the issues contributing to the confidence crisis in our discipline.…”

“…But how can that be managed? Efendic and Van Zyl (2019) argued that both authors and the journal play an important role in enhancing the credibility of the IOP discipline. They provided detailed descriptions of approaches, research practices and techniques authors could employ to enhance the transparency and quality of their manuscripts.…”

“…Furthermore, Efendic and Van Zyl (2019) made various suggestions as to how the journal itself could create a culture that celebrates open research practices, facilitates transparency and enhances the credibility of the discipline. Firstly, they suggested that SAJIP should join the legion of more than 1500 high-impact journals that have already adopted the transparency and open promotion (TOP) guidelines 1 (Nosek et al, 2015) to promote open science and transparent research practices.…”

“…With the dawn of its 45th edition, Efendic and Van Zyl (2019) presented suggestions on how SAJIP could further advance the discipline and enhance the quality of its manuscripts through Problematisation: The credibility and transparency of industrial and organisational psychological (IOP) research within South Africa was recently challenged by Efendic and Van Zyl (2019). The authors briefly showed inconsistencies in statistical results reported by authors of the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP), that various studies were insufficiently powered, that best-practice guidelines for the reporting of results were mostly only partially followed and that no transparency exists with regard to the research process.…”