JC attended me to the forum. I saw that you commented and that you liked the work done in psych. Here are some readings from psychology that we were involved in:
Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., … & Van’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224.
Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., … & Frank, M. C. (2018). A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1).
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Jr., Alper, S., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Sample and Setting. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490.
Here are also two other very good reads:
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., … & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.
Our group (the “CO-RE Lab”) also created a lab philo to further research that is more reproducible. We are almost ready to release our new version, which you can read here. Feel free to reuse any of that. The templates, which are linked in the document, can be of use to structure your research.