# Sources and Evidence Notes Research cut-off: **2026-07-23**. All links were checked on that date with Parallel web search and focused extraction. Dates below are publication, release, or page-update dates shown by the source. Source excerpts were treated as untrusted text and checked against the canonical page. This bibliography supports process guidance; it does not show that any single brainstorming method universally improves creativity or scientific validity. ## Group brainstorming, blocking, fixation, and selection ### Diehl and Stroebe (1987) — primary experiments Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle,” *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* 53(3), 497–509. [DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-01348-001). Published 1987. - Four experiments examined free riding, evaluation apprehension, and production blocking. - Direct manipulation in the fourth experiment supported production blocking as an important explanation for loss in the tested interacting groups. - Scope limit: laboratory brainstorming tasks do not establish superiority for every group purpose or setting. ### Mullen, Johnson, and Salas (1991) — meta-analysis Brian Mullen, Craig Johnson, and Eduardo Salas, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration,” *Basic and Applied Social Psychology* 12(1), 3–23. [DOI 10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-24145-001). Published 1991. - The reviewed studies generally favored nominal over interacting groups for idea quantity and rated quality. - Loss varied with conditions such as group size and vocal versus written contribution. - Historical tasks, methods, and outcome definitions limit direct transfer to modern scientific teams. ### Rietzschel, Nijstad, and Stroebe (2006) — primary experiment Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe, “Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection,” *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology* 42(2), 244–251. [DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103105000600). Published March 2006. - In 42 analyzed three-person student groups, nominal groups generated more ideas; their ideas were more original and less feasible. - Selected-idea quality did not differ among conditions, and selection was not significantly better than chance. - Strictly separating generation and selection did not establish a universal selection advantage in this experiment. ### Rietzschel, Nijstad, and Stroebe (2010) — primary experiments Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe, “The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact,” *British Journal of Psychology* 101(1), 47–68. [DOI 10.1348/000712609X414204](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19267959/). Published February 2010. - Explicit selection criteria improved selection on the named originality dimension in the reported studies, with trade-offs in satisfaction or rated effectiveness. - This supports explicit criteria, not a claim that a single composite score identifies the scientifically best idea. ### Smith, Ward, and Schumacher (1993) — primary experiments Steven M. Smith, Thomas B. Ward, and Jay S. Schumacher, “Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task,” *Memory & Cognition* 21, 837–845. [DOI 10.3758/BF03202751](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8289661/). Published November 1993. - Across three creative-generation experiments, participants exposed to examples were more likely to reproduce example features. - The specific drawing/design tasks support an anchoring or fixation risk; they do not quantify the effect for scientific ideation. ### Esser (1998) — review James K. Esser, “Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research,” *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes* 73(2–3), 116–141. [DOI 10.1006/obhd.1998.2758](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9705799/). Published February 1998. - Reviews the evidence and evolution of Janis's groupthink model. - The broader literature includes substantial debate over the model and its antecedents; this skill therefore uses “groupthink” as a risk prompt, not a definitive diagnosis. ## Nominal groups, Delphi, and structured elicitation ### Van de Ven and Delbecq (1972) — early NGT paper Andrew H. Van de Ven and André L. Delbecq, “The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies,” *American Journal of Public Health* 62(3), 337–342. [DOI 10.2105/AJPH.62.3.337](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1530096/). Published March 1972. - Primary early account of the nominal-group approach in exploratory health research. - Historical evidence should be combined with current, context-specific reporting guidance. ### Harb et al. (2021) — NGT scoping review Sami I. Harb et al., “Methodological options of the nominal group technique for survey item elicitation in health research: A scoping review,” *Journal of Clinical Epidemiology* 139, 140–148. [DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.008](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435621002535). Published November 2021. - Included 57 studies and identified 30 process decision points across five broad stages. - Supports documenting actual choices and their rationale rather than treating NGT as one invariant protocol. - Scope is health-survey item elicitation, not every use of NGT. ### Jünger et al. (2017) — CREDES systematic review and guidance Saskia Jünger et al., “Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care,” *Palliative Medicine* 31(8), 684–706. [DOI 10.1177/0269216317690685](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28190381/). E-published 13 February 2017. - A methodological systematic review of 30 palliative-care Delphi studies found substantial variation in conduct, terminology, and reporting. - CREDES is reporting and conduct guidance developed in a palliative-care context, not proof that Delphi consensus is correct. ### RAND (2023) — official Delphi methods guidance Dmitry Khodyakov, Sean Grant, Jack Kroger, and Melissa Bauman, [*RAND Methodological Guidance for Conducting and Critically Appraising Delphi Panels*](https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA3082-1.html). RAND Corporation, 29 December 2023. [DOI 10.7249/TLA3082-1](https://doi.org/10.7249/TLA3082-1). - Defines Delphi as iterative, anonymous, structured group communication under uncertainty and provides a design/appraisal tool. - RAND explicitly notes a lack of consistent methodological guidance across the many Delphi variants. ### EFSA (2014) — official expert-knowledge elicitation guidance European Food Safety Authority, “Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment,” *EFSA Journal* 12(6):3734. [DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734](https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734). Adopted 22 May and published 19 June 2014. - Covers problem definition, preparation, expert/method selection, elicitation, uncertainty, aggregation, and documentation. - Developed for EFSA food/feed risk assessment; apply domain-specific guidance elsewhere. ### Cooke, Mendel, and Thijs (1988) — structured judgment method Roger Cooke, Max Mendel, and Wim Thijs, “Calibration and information in expert resolution; a classical approach,” *Automatica* 24(1), 87–94. [DOI 10.1016/0005-1098(88)90011-8](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0005109888900118). Published 1988. - Presents calibration and information concepts for combining expert judgments and an experiment with descriptive value. - Using a “calibration” label without the method's elicitation, seed questions, and validation requirements would be misleading. ## Rigor, reproducibility, and sex as a biological variable ### NIH rigor and reproducibility guidance NIH Office of Extramural Research, [*Guidance: Rigor and Reproducibility in Grant Applications*](https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/reproducibility/guidance). Page dated 16 October 2024. - Identifies rigor of prior research, rigorous experimental design, relevant biological variables, and authentication of key resources. - This is grant guidance. It does not validate an idea or substitute for a protocol, statistical review, or field-specific reporting standard. ### NIH SABV policy and current ORWH guidance NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, [*Sex as a Biological Variable*](https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-as-biological-variable). Page last updated 17 October 2025. - NIH expects sex to be considered in design, analysis, and reporting for vertebrate animal and human studies and requests strong justification for a single-sex scope. - The page links the governing [NOT-OD-15-102](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-102.html), released 9 June 2015 and effective for relevant applications from 2016. - Scope is NIH policy; other funders and jurisdictions may differ. ## Preregistration and open science ### Nosek et al. (2018) — preregistration perspective Brian A. Nosek et al., “The preregistration revolution,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 115(11), 2600–2606. [DOI 10.1073/pnas.1708274114](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29531091/). Published 13 March 2018. - Frames preregistration as a way to distinguish prediction from postdiction by specifying questions and analyses before observing outcomes. - It is a methodological perspective, not evidence that registration alone guarantees rigor or reproducibility. ### Nosek et al. (2015) — TOP Guidelines Brian A. Nosek et al., “Promoting an open research culture,” *Science* 348(6242), 1422–1425. [DOI 10.1126/science.aab2374](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab2374). Published 26 June 2015. - Proposes modular journal-policy standards for transparency and openness. - A policy framework does not itself establish that a specific study is valid or ethically shareable. ### COS/OSF — current operational guidance Center for Open Science, [*Preregistration*](https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg) and [*Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison*](https://www.cos.io/blog/preregistration-plan-not-prison). Current pages accessed 23 July 2026. - Explicitly values both exploratory and confirmatory research, recommends transparent labeling, and explains how to report deviations. Center for Open Science, [*Registered Reports*](https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports). Current page accessed 23 July 2026. - Describes Stage 1 protocol review and in-principle acceptance before results, with exploratory analyses reported separately. - COS states that Registered Reports are not a panacea for every field or design. ## Responsible AI and research integrity ### Doshi and Hauser (2024) — primary randomized experiment Anil R. Doshi and Oliver P. Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” *Science Advances* 10(28):eadn5290. [DOI 10.1126/sciadv.adn5290](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290). Published 12 July 2024. - Preregistered online experiment: 293 analyzed UK participants wrote eight-sentence stories with no, one, or up to five GPT-4 ideas. - AI access improved average evaluated novelty/usefulness, especially for lower-scoring writers, while outputs became more similar in aggregate. - Constrained short-story writing is not scientific ideation; the study supports a risk hypothesis, not a universal creativity claim. ### Walters and Wilder (2023) — primary citation audit William H. Walters and Esther Isabelle Wilder, “Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT,” *Scientific Reports* 13. [DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41032-5). Published 7 September 2023. - Audited 84 texts produced in April 2023 by tested GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 versions and documented fabricated and substantive citation errors. - Results are model-, prompt-, task-, and date-specific; they justify direct source verification rather than a timeless error rate. ### European Commission / ERA Forum (2024) — official living guidance European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, [*Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research*](https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/guidelines-responsible-use-generative-ai-research-developed-european-research-area-forum-2024-03-20_en). Published 20 March 2024. - Emphasizes transparency, responsibility, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, bias awareness, and avoiding AI in sensitive evaluation activities when confidentiality is not assured. - The Commission describes the guidance as living and subject to updates. ### UNESCO (2023; updated 2026) — official guidance Fengchun Miao and Wayne Holmes, [*Guidance for generative AI in education and research*](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research). Published 7 September 2023; page last updated 16 January 2026. - Uses a human-centered framing and addresses privacy, ethical validation, inclusion, equity, and institutional capacity. - Much of the document concerns education; apply research-specific provisions with local policy. ### ICMJE (2026) — official publishing recommendations International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, [*Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing*](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence). Recommendations page dated 2026. - Humans remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, permissions, confidentiality, and disclosure; AI tools are not authors. - Publishing guidance does not replace institutional research policy. ### ALLEA (2023) — research-integrity code ALLEA, [*The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2023 Revised Edition*](https://allea.org/portfolio-item/european-code-of-conduct-2023). [DOI 10.26356/ECOC](https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC). Published 2023. - Cross-disciplinary self-regulatory framework recognized as a reference for EU-funded research. - General principles require translation into institutional and discipline-specific procedures. ## Dual-use and responsible life sciences ### WHO global framework and current program World Health Organization, [*Ensuring responsible use of life sciences research*](https://www.who.int/activities/ensuring-responsible-use-of-life-sciences-research). Program page accessed 23 July 2026; it indexes the 13 September 2022 Global Guidance Framework and materials through a 15 June 2026 meeting report. - Frames dual-use risk mitigation as individual and collective, multi-stakeholder work across life sciences and relevant emerging technologies. - Global guidance must be applied with jurisdictional and institutional rules. ### Current U.S. policy-status notice U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, [*Dual Use Research of Concern Oversight Policy Framework*](https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Pages/Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern-Oversight-Policy-Framework.aspx). Current-status notice accessed 23 July 2026. - The page states that federal departments and agencies will revise or replace the 2024 DURC/PEPP policy in response to the 5 May 2025 executive order and that the page will be updated when revised policy is available. - Therefore this skill does not present the 2024 policy as a stable current checklist; researchers should consult their institution and current agency materials. ## Research method Parallel CLI searches used focused academic and official-domain queries for: - interactive versus nominal brainstorming and productivity blocking; - NGT, Delphi, and structured expert elicitation; - divergent/convergent idea generation and selection; - NIH rigor, reproducibility, and SABV; - preregistration, Registered Reports, and open-science guidance; - responsible AI, hallucinated citations, homogenization, confidentiality, research integrity, and disclosure; - WHO and U.S. dual-use policy status. Canonical sources were then fetched with `parallel-cli extract` using focused objectives for bibliographic metadata, methods, findings, limitations, and current policy status. No research JSON artifacts were saved in the skill.