Dr. Thibault studies how to increase the rigour and reproducibility of scientific research. His work focuses on developing and evaluating solutions to shortcomings in the research ecosystem. He completed a PhD in cognitive neuroscience at McGill University in 2019. His doctoral work focused on brain imaging, including neurofeedback, placebos, and suggestion. This work is outlined in his book, Casting Light on The Dark Side of Brain Imaging, co-editied with Dr. Amir Raz. He then worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bristol University before joining the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS) in 2021. His publications are available at

Stanford Advisors

All Publications

  • Excess significance and power miscalculations in neurofeedback research. NeuroImage. Clinical Thibault, R. T., Pedder, H. 2022: 103008

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103008

    View details for PubMedID 35525708

  • Rigour and reproducibility in Canadian research: call for a coordinated approach FACETS Thibault, R. T., Munafo, M. R., Moher, D. 2022; 7: 18-24
  • Citation Patterns Following a Strongly Contradictory Replication Result: Four Case Studies From Psychology ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Hardwicke, T. E., Szucs, D., Thibault, R. T., Cruwell, S., van den Akker, O. R., Nuijten, M. B., Ioannidis, J. A. 2021; 4 (3)
  • Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014-2017). Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., Ioannidis, J. P. 2021: 1745691620979806


    Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives emphasize the benefits of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. Estimating the prevalence of such practices will help to gauge the collective impact of reform initiatives, track progress over time, and calibrate future efforts. To this end, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014 and 2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [59%, 71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183; 14%, 95% CI = [10%, 19%]), study protocols (0/188; 0%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]), raw data (4/188; 2%, 95% CI = [1%, 4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188; 1%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]) was rare. Preregistration was also uncommon (5/188; 3%, 95% CI = [1%, 5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228; 62%, 95% CI = [56%, 69%]), but conflict-of-interest statements were less common (88/228; 39%, 95% CI = [32%, 45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188; 5%, 95% CI = [3%, 8%]), and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183; 11%, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183; 7%, 95% CI = [4%, 10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish baseline prevalence estimates against which future progress toward increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research can be compared.

    View details for DOI 10.1177/1745691620979806

    View details for PubMedID 33682488