The best resource for understanding the workflow of the PSA is our recently accepted policy paper, forthcoming in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. You can read our pre-print here.
Some specific PSA processes warrant expanded attention and description:
We welcome submissions from all researchers, whether they are members of the Psychological Science Accelerator network or not. The only caveat is that current members of the Study Selection Committee will recuse themselves from all discussions about, evaluations of, and decisions on submissions from themselves or close colleagues and collaborators. The Study Selection Committee, in consultation with advisory committees and input from the full network, will select which effects are included in the Accelerator’s data collection projects, following the workflow outlined here:
Phase 1: Submission (4 weeks)
- Submissions received from prospective team leaders (via < 5,000 word RR format). The Director blinds the submission for review.
- The Study Selection Committee (SSC) performs a feasibility check (methods only) on all submissions, gauging whether or not the proposed project is possible given current Accelerator capacity. (2 weeks)
- Reviewers (both within and outside the Accelerator) are identified and assigned to review submissions (at least 3 content experts & all advisory committees). (2 weeks)
Phase 2: Evaluation (4 weeks)
- Committees and Reviewers review proposals. Reviewers and Committee Chairs provide summary evaluation reports to the SSC. (2 weeks)
- All Accelerator network members provide quantitative ratings via online survey. (2 weeks concurrent with above)
- The SSC considers all evaluation reports and network quantitative ratings to make selections based upon all feedback and evaluation. (2 weeks)
- The Director provides feedback on both accepted and rejected submissions as decisions are made. (2 weeks, concurrent with above)
- Translation: Original document is translated from source to target language by A translators resulting in document Version A
- Back-translation: Version A is translated back from target to source language by B Translators independently resulting in Version B
- Discussion: Version A and B are discussed among translators and the language coordinator, discrepancies in Version A and B are detected and solutions are discussed. Version C is created.
- External Readings: Version C is tested on two non-academics fluent in the target language. Members of the fluent group are asked how they perceive and understand the translation. Possible misunderstandings are noted and again discussed as in Step 3.
- Cultural Adjustments: Data collection labs read materials and identify any needed adjustments for their local participant sample. Adjustments are discussed with the Language Coordinator, who makes any necessary changes, resulting in the final version for each site.
Authorship on publications resulting from PSA projects are determined on a case-by-case basis, but are informed by the CRediT taxonomy and articulated in project-specific collaboration agreements. These agreements outline the contributions necessary to earn authorship on a PSA manuscript and describe how authorship order will be determined. Here are the collaboration agreements spelling out authorship criteria for several of our current projects: