SIPS 2025 Budapest

Numerous studies confirm that researchers frequently misinterpret key statistics in published articles. A particularly prevalent issue identified previously is the tendency of researchers to misinterpret nonsignificance as representing no true effect. Accordingly, the present study aims to re-investigate this issue – to clarify the prevalence of nonsignificance misinterpretations in published psychology articles and it's changes over time. To achieve this, we looked at nonsignificance statements in the discussion sections of 599 articles across three time points (2009, 2015, 2021) from ten psychology journals of varying impact factors. We then coded each statement as correctly or incorrectly interpreting nonsignificance. Our results reveal a higher prevalence of these misinterpretations compared to prior studies (81% incorrect). Based on these findings, we urge researchers to reconsider how they report and interpret their results, with a focus on improving accuracy and transparency in the interpretation of statistically nonsignificant results.

A fair and transparent attribution of authorship remains a pressing issue in academia. While established guidelines like APA’s and frameworks such as the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) offer structured approaches, students’ contributions to science often go unrecognized. Our research shows that 86.2% of German psychology students and 38.9% of researchers are unaware of existing authorship guidelines, and conflicts over authorship are widespread. To address this, a task force at RUB university has developed a guideline to systematically acknowledge student contributions using CRediT. This initiative integrates authorship education into curricula and fosters a culture of transparency in collaboration between researchers and students. By implementing such criteria, we aim to promote fairness in publication practices and encourage student engagement in academia. Our talk presents insights from our survey, outlines the development process of the guideline, and discusses its implications for academic institutions striving for equitable recognition of research contributions.