MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415099214 · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.70019

The Case for Expanding the Domain of Registered Reports: Confronting Academic Dishonesty and Declining Confidence in Science

2025· article· en· W4415099214 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuard (computer science)ScholarshipScope (computer science)Public domainConstruct (python library)PublicationDishonestyHuman resource managementQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Human Resource Management Journal is expanding the scope of registered reports to encompass all forms of empirical research in human resource management, regardless of data type or methodological approach. This editorial explains the rationale for this change. I begin by defining registered reports and tracing their origins. I then argue that academia's prevailing “publish or perish” culture has significantly eroded public confidence in science. The pressure to publish has fostered questionable research practices and diminished the overall quality of scholarship across disciplines, including management and business studies. I contend that registered reports—particularly in their expanded form—help guard against many of these practices and promote greater integrity in research. I conclude by offering practical guidance on how to construct a registered report.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it