Central to our motivation for writing this article is the current debate over reproducibility within psychological science and other fields and related discussion regarding incentive structures for tenure and promotion. There is broad agreement that the incentive structure for tenure and promotion can reward research practices that incentivize novelty, expediency, and publication quantity and disincentivize practices that promote rigor, reproducibility, and scientific quality (e.g., Edwards & Roy, 2017; Flier, 2017; Higginson & Munafò, 2016; Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016). This is not to say that rigor is not valued by researchers (Ebersole, Axt, & Nosek, 2016) but rather that no existing widely used reporting system allows researchers to document their efforts in ensuring quality or facilitate the evaluation of participation in robust scientific practices. To be sure, problems regarding reproducibility and incentives are multifaceted and cannot be solved with any singular reform. However, we believe that many small “nudges” are capable of better aligning the incentive and evaluation structures of our scientific community with the values and principles of robust science (e.g., Grand et al., 2018; Nosek et al., 2012). We further posit that changing culture and practices around these issues will involve empowering researchers to reflect on and publicly express their views on how and why they conduct their research and then allowing them to report the steps they take to meet those expectations.

中文翻译：

---

使研究评估更加透明：统一研究理念，机构价值和报告

我们撰写本文动机的核心是当前有关心理学和其他领域的可重复性的辩论，以及有关权属和晋升激励结构的相关讨论。人们普遍认为，权属和晋升的激励结构可以奖励那些鼓励新颖性，权宜之计和出版物数量的研究实践，而不能激励那些促进严谨性，可再现性和科学质量的实践（例如，Edwards＆Roy，2017； Flier，2017； Fair，2017； Flier，2017）。 Higginson＆Munafò，2016年； Nosek，Spies和Motyl，2012年； Smaldino和McElreath，2016年）。这并不是说研究人员不重视严谨性（Ebersole，Axt和Nosek，2016年），但没有一个现有的广泛使用的报告系统允许研究人员记录他们在确保质量或促进对强大科学实践参与度的评估方面所做的努力。可以肯定的是，有关可复制性和激励机制的问题是多方面的，任何单一的改革都无法解决。但是，我们认为，许多小型“推动者”能够更好地使科学界的激励和评估结构与稳健科学的价值观和原则保持一致（例如，Grand等人，2018； Nosek等人，2012）。我们进一步假设，围绕这些问题改变文化和实践将涉及使研究人员有权反思和公开表达他们关于如何以及为什么进行研究的观点，然后允许他们报告为实现这些期望而采取的步骤。