A commentary on research rigour in clinical psychological science: How to avoid throwing out the innovation baby with the research credibility bath water in the depression field

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.Proponents of the research credibility movement make a number of recommendations to enhance research rigour in psychology. These represent positive advances and can enhance replicability in clinical psychological science. This article evaluates whether there are any risks associated with this movement. We argue that there is the potential for research credibility principles to stifle innovation and exacerbate type II error, but only if they are applied too rigidly and beyond their intended scope by funders, journals and scientists. We outline ways to mitigate these risks. Further, we discuss how research credibility issues need to be situated within broader concerns about research waste. A failure to optimise the process by which basic science findings are used to inform the development of novel treatments (the first translational gap) and effective treatments are then implemented in real-world settings (the second translational gap) are also significant sources of research waste in depression. We make some suggestions about how to better cross these translational gaps