Editorial | TIM RaDar as a Practical Screening Tool for IMRaD Articles: Consensual Publication Standards Among Indonesian Psychological Journal Editors [TIM RaDar Sebagai Alat Screening Praktis untuk Artikel IMRaD: Standar Publikasi Konsensual]

TIM RaDaR is an initiative to discover common standards for scientific publications in the field of psychology in Indonesia. Through this standard, authors (i.e., researchers, students, or lecturers) may prepare their manuscripts to meet the basic criteria for scientific publication. The writing criteria comprise of Title, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion, and References. This article also provides a checklist to aid authors and journal editors in evaluating manuscripts to be published. As an initiative, this article aims to become a starting point in synergizing better quality scientific publications in the field of psychology in Indonesia. TIM RaDaR adalah sebuah inisiatif untuk menggali standar bersama publikasi ilmiah psikologi Indonesia. Melalui standar ini, penulis (peneliti, mahasiswa, atau dosen) dapat mempersiapkan tulisan yang mereka susun untuk memenuhi kriteria dasar publikasi ilmiah. Kriteria tersebut mencakup penulisan Judul, Pendahuluan, Metode, Hasil dan Diskusi, serta Pustaka Acuan (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion, and References). Tulisan ini juga memberikan sebuah checklist yang dapat digunakan sebagai alat bantu bagi penulis dan pengelola jurnal untuk mengevaluasi tulisan yang telah disusun. Sebagai suatu inisiatif, tulisan ini menjadi titik awal sinergi publikasi ilmiah psikologi Indonesia yang lebih bermutu di masa mendatang.

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Easily comprehensible summaries of scholarly articles that are provided alongside ‘ordinary’ scientific abstracts, so-called plain language summaries, can be a powerful tool for communicating research findings to a wider audience. Using an experimental within-person-design in a preregistered study (N = 166), we showed that the comprehensibility for laypeople was higher for plain language summaries compared to scientific abstracts in a psychological journal and also found that laypeople actually understood the corresponding information more correctly for plain language summaries. Moreover, in line with the easiness effect of science popularization, individuals perceived plain language summaries as more credible and were more confident about their ability to make a decision based on plain language summaries. If and under which circumstances this higher perceived credibility is justified, is discussed together with other practical implications and theoretical implications of our findings. In sum, our research further strengthens arguments for providing plain language summaries of psychological research findings by demonstrating that they actually work in practice.

EXPERT SURVEY ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE CORONAVIRUS EPIDEMIC

В 2019 г. от болезней органов дыхания в России скончались 58 тыс. человек, а от инфекционных болезней - 31,2 тыс. Эпидемия холеры, от которой Пушкин в свое время скрывался в Болдино, унесла жизни около 200 тыс. россиян. От короноваруса, на момент написания статьи, их погибло примерно 4 тыс. Так, что такое нынешняя эпидемия - психологический артефакт или реальная угроза всей современной цивилизации? Для ответа на этот и другие подобные вопросы, призванные прояснить «странную» эпидемию коронавируса, авторами был осуществлен экспертный опрос, который был проведен среди исследователей, опубликовавших свои статьи в «Психологическом журнале» и «Вопросах психологии» в период с 2014 по 2020 гг. Экспертным опросом было охвачено 152 респондента, представлявших различные регионы России и разные отрасли психологии (примерно треть из 477 разосланных анкет была возвращена в заполненном виде). Психологи, приглашенные в качестве экспертов, являлись специалистами в своих областях, однако, по убеждению авторов статьи, не раз задумывались над вопросами, близкими тем, которые были включены в анкету. В ней содержался 21 вопрос, из них 6 открытых и 7 полуоткрытых. Опрос был проведен в апреле 2020 г. Основной задачей, решавшейся в ходе его проведения, было выявление мнений респондентов по поводу психологического контекста коронавирусной эпидемии, который, по мнению различных специалистов, является одним из наиболее существенных. Авторы полагают, что ответы респондентов на открытые и полуоткрытые вопросы анкеты тоже содержат ценную информацию и могут быть интересны читателям Журнала. In 2019, 58 thousand people died from respiratory diseases, and 31.2 thousand died from infectious diseases in Russia. The cholera epidemic, from which Pushkin hid in Boldino, claimed the lives of about 200 thousand Russians. At the time of this writing there were about 4 thousand deaths due to coronavirus. So, what is the actual epidemic - is it a psychological artifact or a real threat to the entire modern civilization? The authors of this article conducted an expert survey designed to answer this and other similar questions and clarify the" strange "epidemic of coronavirus. The survey was realized among researchers who had published their articles in the "Psychological journal" and "Questions of psychology" in the period from 2014 to 2020. The expert survey covered 152 respondents from different regions of Russia and different branches of psychology (about third of the 477 questionnaires sent out were returned in completed form). Psychologists considered as experts are specialists in their fields, but, according to the authors of the article, they have often thought about questions like those included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, 6 of them open and 7 half-open. The survey was conducted in April 2020. The main tasks that were solved during the survey were to identify respondents ' opinions about the psychological context of the coronavirus epidemic, which, according to various experts, is one of the most significant. The authors believe that the answers of respondents to open and semi-open questions of the questionnaire also contain valuable information and may be of interest to the readers of the Journal.

Editorial - Passing the Baton: 35 Years and Carrying On [Meneruskan Tongkat Estafet: 35 Tahun dan Terus Berjalan]

Editorial for ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal Volume 35, consisting of introduction and explanation regarding significant changes on ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal. Editorial untuk ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal Volume 35, berisi pendahuluan dan penjelasan atas perubahan penting di ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal.

Publication bias and statistical power in gerontological psychology

Objectives: Research has found evidence of publication bias, questionable research practices (QRPs), and low statistical power in published psychological journal articles. Isaacowitz’s (2018) editorial in the Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences called for investigation of these issues in gerontological research. The current study presents meta-research findings based on published research to explore if there is evidence of these practices in gerontological research. Method: 14,481 test statistics and p values were extracted from articles published in eight top gerontological psychology journals since 2000. Frequentist and Bayesian caliper tests were used to test for publication bias and QRPs (specifically, p-hacking and incorrect rounding of p values). A z-curve analysis was used to estimate average statistical power across studies.Results: Strong evidence of publication bias was observed, and average statistical power was approximately .70 – below the recommended .80 level. Evidence of p-hacking was mixed. Evidence of incorrect rounding of p values was inconclusive.Discussion: Gerontological research is not immune to publication bias, QRPs, and low statistical power. Researchers, journals, institutions, and funding bodies are encouraged to adopt open and transparent research practices, and using Registered Reports as an alternative article type to minimize publication bias and QRPs, and increase statistical power.