Enhancing the quality and reproducibility of research: Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Studies - The PECANS statement for human studies
Are scientific papers providing all essential details necessary to ensure the replicability of study protocols? Are authors effectively conveying study design, data analysis, and the process of drawing inferences from their results? These represent only a fraction of the pressing questions that cognitive psychology and neuropsychology face in addressing the "crisis of confidence." This crisis has highlighted numerous shortcomings in the journey from research to publication. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PECANS (Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive And Neuropsychological Studies), a comprehensive checklist tool designed to guide the planning, execution, evaluation, and reporting of experimental research. PECANS emerged from a rigorous consensus-building process through the Delphi method. We convened a panel of international experts specialized in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology research practices. Through two rounds of iterative voting and a proof-of-concept phase, PECANS evolved into its final form. The PECANS checklist is intended to serve various stakeholders in the fields of cognitive sciences and neuropsychology, including: (i) researchers seeking to ensure and enhance reproducibility and rigor in their research; (ii) journal editors and reviewers assessing the quality of reports; (iii) ethics committees and funding agencies; (iv) students approaching methodology and scientific writing. PECANS is a versatile tool intended not only to improve the quality and transparency of individual research projects but also to foster a broader culture of rigorous scientific inquiry across the academic and research community.
Authors
- Enrico Toffalini (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-5133)
- Rachele Pezzetta (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9320-0719)
- Sam J. Gilbert (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3839-7045)
- Martin Wiener (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-5439)
- Carlo Miniussi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5436-4745)
- Chris Chambers (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6058-4114)
- Cristina Scarpazza (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4126-426X)
- Aina Puce (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0716-4185)
- Anita Eerland (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-2941)
- Russell A. Poldrack (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-0259)
- Sara Borgomaneri (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4959-6442)
- Michael A. Nitsche (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-5965)
- Cristiano Costa (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5472-546X)
- K. Richard Ridderinkhof
- Massimo Grassi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-2784)
- Patricia J. Bauer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4456-7717)
- Tamara Y. Swaab (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551-0229)
- Marc Brysbaert (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-3189)
- Giorgia Cona
- Carlo Umiltà
- Nicola M.J. Edelstyn
Institutions
- University of Padua (IT)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Emory University (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- University of Trento (IT)
- TU Dortmund University (DE)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- IRCCS San Camillo Hospital (IT)
- Azienda-Unita' Sanitaria Locale Di Cesena (IT)
- Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (DE)
- University College London (GB)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Bethel University (US)
- Bath Spa University (GB)
- University of Bologna (IT)
- Stanford University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2025-05-30
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02705-3
- Citations
- 5
- Primary Topic
- Delphi Technique in Research
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 21.01
Funders
- City University of New York
- Washington University in St. Louis
- Queensland University of Technology
- Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
- Ministero della Salute