Psychology, Department of


Date of this Version



Published in Archives of Sexual Behavior 49 (2020), pp 367–372

DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01650-w


Copyright © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020. Used by permission.


Most readers of the Archives of Sexual Behavior will, by now, be familiar with an upsurge of interest in best practices for reproducibility and replicability across modern scientific disciplines (Ioannidis, 2005; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2019; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). Concerns about the basic validity of findings that cannot be replicated—and the widespread practices and incentive systems that lead to unverifiable results—are particularly important for social and behavioral scientists, whose fields of study are relatively younger and whose work is often interpreted as more subjective than other sciences (Lilienfeld, 2012).

As sexuality research continues to mature as an established field of study with its own methods, theories, and bodies of literature, we too must address growing concerns regarding our commitment to scientific rigor. The “replication crisis” has been covered at length in other settings; in this Guest Editorial, I will outline some specific concerns with regards to improving open science practices in sexuality research. Additionally, I will describe some best practices recommended to researchers looking to submit to Archives, and for reviewers at Archives to consider when recommending manuscripts for publication. As Archives receives many submissions using qualitative methods, I have made special efforts to include consideration of how reproducibility and replicability apply to these scholars as well. My intention is to start a broader discussion about methodical standards across the Archives’ readers, authors, and reviewers; as such, I welcome critiques and commentary.

Included in

Psychology Commons