Search

CroRIS brings together information on scientific activities across Croatia into one central system. This not only makes research data more visible and accessible but also ensures it can be easily shared with others, meeting international standards for data exchange. Looking ahead, CroRIS is set to expand its features, improving how it works with digital repositories and managing research data. These updates aim to make the research process more connected, easier to navigate, and more efficient, highlighting Croatia's dedication to open science. This commitment helps foster global collaboration and makes scientific research more open and accessible to all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to assess the favourable ecosystem for supporting OS in Tanzania and the factors hindering its adoption and implementation. Employing a cross-sectional research design, the study evaluates the enabling environment for Open Science adoption and practices within Tanzania. The study population comprises academicians, researchers, students, librarians, and science communicators. A total of 144 participants took part in the survey, predominantly early career researchers affiliated with both public and private institutions. The findings underscore that to some extent several institutions within Tanzania provides some kind of support for open science practices. This support manifests through the provision of Institutional Repositories, online journal publishing systems, financial coverage for publishing processing charges, and the establishment of improved mechanisms for researchers to share their publications and data. Nonetheless, the results also highlight several challenges. These include a lack of awareness regarding OS practices, absence of institutional policies, inadequate budget allocation to cover article processing charges (APCs), and the high costs associated with publishing in prestigious Open Access (OA) journals. Concerted efforts at both national and institutional levels to foster the widespread adoption of OS practices in Tanzania should be put in place. The efforts should focus on enhancing awareness, developing comprehensive policies, allocating adequate budgets to support APCs, and exploring strategies to mitigate the financial barriers associated with publishing in prestigious OA journals. By addressing these challenges proactively, Tanzania can pave the way for a more robust and inclusive research ecosystem aligned with the principles of Open Science.

Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously posted one. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors’ visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to improve researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self‐reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM‐B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM‐B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously posted one. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors’ visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to improve researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

This educational article explores the convergence of open science practices and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), shedding light on the potential benefits and challenges of open science for the development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based TCIM. We emphasize the transformative shift in medical science towards open and collaborative practices, highlighting the limited application of open science in TCIM research despite its growing acceptance among patients. We define open science practices and discuss those that are applicable to TCIM, including: study registration; reporting guidelines; data, code and material sharing; preprinting; publishing open access; and reproducibility/replication studies. We explore the benefits of open science in TCIM, spanning improved research quality, increased public trust, accelerated innovation, and enhanced evidence-based decision-making. We also acknowledge challenges such as data privacy concerns, limited resources, and resistance to cultural change. We propose strategies to overcome these challenges, including ethical guidelines, education programs, funding advocacy, interdisciplinary dialogue, and patient engagement. Looking to the future, we envision the maturation of open science in TCIM, the development of TCIM-specific guidelines for open science practices, advancements in data sharing platforms, the integration of open data and artificial intelligence in TCIM research, and changes in the context of policy and regulation. We foresee a future where open science in TCIM leads to a better evidence base, informed decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transformative impacts on healthcare and research methodologies, highlighting the promising synergy between open science and TCIM for holistic, evidence-based healthcare solutions.

Abstract Puberty is a phase in which individuals often test the boundaries of themselves and surrounding others and further define their identity – and thus their uniqueness compared to other individuals. Similarly, as Computational Social Science (CSS) grows up, it must strike a balance between its own practices and those of neighboring disciplines to achieve scientific rigor and refine its identity. However, there are certain areas within CSS that are reluctant to adopt rigorous scientific practices from other fields, which can be observed through an overreliance on passively collected data (e.g., through digital traces, wearables) without questioning the validity of such data. This paper argues that CSS should embrace the potential of combining both passive and active measurement practices to capitalize on the strengths of each approach, including objectivity and psychological quality. Additionally, the paper suggests that CSS would benefit from integrating practices and knowledge from other established disciplines, such as measurement validation, theoretical embedding, and open science practices. Based on this argument, the paper provides ten recommendations for CSS to mature as an interdisciplinary field of research.

Puberty is a phase in which individuals often test the boundaries of themselves and surrounding others and further define their identity – and thus their uniqueness compared to other individuals. Similarly, as Computational Social Science (CSS) grows up, it must strike a balance between its own practices and those of neighboring disciplines to achieve scientific rigor and refine its identity. However, there are certain areas within CSS that are reluctant to adopt rigorous scientific practices from other fields, which can be observed through an overreliance on passively collected data (e.g., through digital traces, wearables) without questioning the validity of such data. This paper argues that CSS should embrace the potential of combining both passive and active measurement practices to capitalize on the strengths of each approach, including objectivity and psychological quality. Additionally, the paper suggests that CSS would benefit from integrating practices and knowledge from other established disciplines, such as measurement validation, theoretical embedding, and open science practices. Based on this argument, the paper provides ten recommendations for CSS to mature as an interdisciplinary field of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not uniform or optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable for their successful implementation. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to implement preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Biomedical authors were identified by a keyword-based, systematic search of the MEDLINE database, and their emails were extracted to invite them to our survey. A cross-sectional anonymous survey was distributed to all identified biomedical authors to collect their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 biomedical researchers with a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously published a preprint. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors’ visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to increase researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

Open science is an increasingly important topic for research, politics and funding agencies. However, the discourse on open science is heavily influenced by certain research fields and paradigms, leading to the risk of generalizing what counts as openness to other research fields, regardless of its applicability. In our paper, we provide evidence that researchers perceive different profiles in the potential to apply open science practices to their projects, making a one-size-fits-all approach unsuitable. In a pilot study, we first systematized the breadth of open science practices. The subsequent survey study examined the perceived applicability of 13 open science practices across completed research projects in a broad variety of research disciplines. We were able to identify four different profiles in the perceived applicability of open science practices. For researchers conducting qualitative-empirical research projects, comprehensively implementing the breadth of open science practices is tendentially not feasible. Further, research projects from some disciplines tended to fit a profile with little opportunity for public participation. Yet, disciplines and research paradigms appear not to be the key factors in predicting the perceived applicability of open science practices. Our findings underscore the case for considering project-related conditions when implementing open science practices. This has implications for the establishment of policies, guidelines and standards concerning open science.

Changes in statistical practices and reporting have been documented by Giofrè et al. PLOS ONE 12(4), e0175583 (2017), who investigated ten statistical and open practices in two high-ranking journals (Psychological Science [PS] and Journal of Experimental Psychology-General [JEPG]): null hypothesis significance testing; confidence or credible intervals; meta-analysis of the results of multiple experiments; confidence interval interpretation; effect size interpretation; sample size determination; data exclusion; data availability; materials availability; and preregistered design and analysis plan. The investigation was based on an analysis of all papers published in these journals between 2013 and 2015. The aim of the present study was to follow up changes in both PS and JEPG in subsequent years, from 2016 to 2020, adding code availability as a further open practice. We found improvement in most practices, with some exceptions (i.e., confidence interval interpretation and meta-analysis). Despite these positive changes, our results indicate a need for further improvements in statistical practices and adoption of open practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The numerous benefits of Open Science (OS) and of the four FAIR foundational principles - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable - are increasingly valued in academia, although what OS and FAIR entail is still largely misunderstood. In such conditions, putting into practice OS and applying the FAIR principles is challenging and underrated. However, realising OS is perfectly within our grasp provided that an infrastructure supporting the management of the research lifecycle is available. ROHub (https://www.rohub.org/) is a Research Object (RO) management platform implementing three complementary technologies: Research Objects, Data Cubes and Text Mining services. ROHub enables researchers to collaboratively manage, share and preserve their research while they are still working on it (rather than after the work is finished). In this paper, three communities from Earth Sciences, namely Geohazards, Sea Monitoring and Climate Change, demonstrate how ROHub helped them to understand each other and to work openly and, more importantly, how communities of practice play an important role in facilitating reuse and interdisciplinary collaboration. These findings are illustrated with several use cases from these various communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, educational research faces different changes. One of the most urgent is the articulation with the principles and criteria of open science, which aim to expand the models, scenarios and platforms related to the production, circulation, use and transfer of educational knowledge. To approach the current panorama and establish some projections for Colombia, the results of the research "open science practices of Colombian researchers" were analyzed, particularly of the 122 researchers in the educational sciences. It was found that, in the design of research, especially information is consulted in open resources. And low percentages in relation to the construction of research agendas together with communities and institutions. In the design of the methodology, low percentages of replication of investigative methods and techniques are reported. Data management is one of the practices with the lowest results, as well as public communication of science. The conclusions place the emphasis on promoting open science in: the training processes of science actors, throughout the educational cycle, especially in the teaching of research and scientific vocations, and in the recognition processes of curricular projects. from all areas of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores researchers' different open science practices in the process for generating knowledge in basic sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics), using a qualitative approach with eight semi-directed interviews. The main perceived effect of open science is the access to research inputs, i.e., open access to articles, open research data - especially the reuse of data and paradata -, and the reuse of codes as main sources. Another topic is the increased and accelerated collaboration with other colleagues, as well as the promotion of the exchange of ideas, i.e., it is a cultural change caused by the exchange of information. However, this work also explores the fact that the implementation of open science policies has unintended consequences, such as the creation of new inequalities or the reproduction of those that already exist in science. Finally, the issue of scientific communication as part of the conceptualization of open science is also mentioned by different researchers, although it is a subject that remains to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers. Methods From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified. Results Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers’ understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research. Conclusion The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.

To address the low reproducibility and replicability of research, Open Science Practices (OSPs) have been developed. Yet, despite increasing awareness of their potential benefits, there has been only little implementation. As journals can act as gatekeepers for scientific discoveries, a potential tendency not to mention OSPs on their websites may help to explain this implementation gap. Therefore, we examined the implementation of OSPs and potential barriers in industrial and organizational psychology and management (IOP/management) journals. Study 1 examined whether and how N = 257 journal websites referred to OSPs. We found that most journals did not mention OSPs. Specifically, only two (1.0%), five (2.5%), and 14 (6.9%) IOP/management journals mentioned preregistration, registered reports, and explicitly welcomed replications, respectively. Study 2 investigated perceived barriers to implementing OSPs with a survey among editors of the IOP/management journals from Study 1. Among the 40 responding editors, 14, 10, and five attributed the lacking implementation of OSPs to a lesser suitability of OSPs for qualitative research, missing authority, and missing familiarity with OSPs, respectively. Based on our findings, the implementation gap could be mitigated by developing new and refining extant OSPs, starting bottom-up initiatives (e.g., researchers directly contacting publishers), and increasing the availability of information on OSPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review of the dimensions of open science in research processes. A total of four databases and snowball searching were used for the comprehensive literature review during 2011–2020; then, we were able to find 98 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Also, we used thematic method to review the relevant studies and identified three categories of dimensions in the research process, namely (1) the publication and sharing category including open access, open data, transparency and reproducibility, citizen science, and crowd sourcing; (2) the infrastructure and cultural category including open infrastructure, open education, open tools, budget mechanism, open culture, and communication; and (3) governance and evaluation including policies, governance, and the ethical principles associated with open science. Open science emphasizes the efforts to open and make the scientific research process more inclusive so as to engage the inside and outside actors in the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of industrial/organizational (IO) psychology, is to build and organize trustworthy knowledge about people-related phenomena in the workplace. Unfortunately, as with other scientific disciplines, our discipline may be experiencing a “crisis of confidence” stemming from the lack of reproducibility and replicability of many of our field's research findings, which would suggest that much of our research may be untrustworthy. If a scientific discipline's research is deemed untrustworthy, it can have dire consequences, including the withdraw of funding for future research. In this focal article, we review the current state of reproducibility and replicability in IO psychology and related fields. As part of this review, we discuss factors that make it less likely that research findings will be trustworthy, including the prevalence of scientific misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs), and errors. We then identify some root causes of these issues and provide several potential remedies. In particular, we highlight the need for improved research methods and statistics training as well as a re-alignment of the incentive structure in academia. To accomplish this, we advocate for changes in the reward structure, improvements to the peer review process, and the implementation of open science practices. Overall, addressing the current “crisis of confidence” in IO psychology requires individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers to embrace system-wide change.

Background: Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers. Methods: From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified. Results: Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers' understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research. Conclusion: The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the years following the reproducibility crisis in behavioral sciences, increased attention of the scientific community has been dedicated to the correct application of statistical inference and promotion of open science practices. In the present survey, we contacted psychology researchers, lecturers, and doctoral students from all universities in Slovakia and the Slovak Academy of Sciences via email. Together we received answers from 65 participants. Questions in the survey covered the most common misconceptions about statistical hypothesis testing, as well as awareness, attitudes, and barriers related to the adherence to open science practices. We found a high prevalence of statistical misconceptions, namely related to the interpretation of p-values and interpretation of null results. At the same time, participants indicated mostly positive attitudes towards open science practices, such as data sharing and preregistration, and were highly interested in further training. These results provide an insight into the needs of the Slovak psychology research community. This is an important step in the further dissemination of open science practices and the prevention of common statistical and methodological errors.

Known methodological issues such as publication bias, questionable research practices and studies with underpowered designs are known to decrease the replicability of study findings. The presence of such issues has been widely established across different research fields, especially in psychology. Their presence raised the first concerns that the replicability of study findings could be low and led researchers to conduct large replication projects. These replication projects revealed that a significant portion of original study findings could not be replicated, giving rise to the conceptualization of the replication crisis. Although previous research in the field of sports and exercise science has identified the first warning signs, such as an overwhelming proportion of significant findings, small sample sizes and lack of data availability, their possible consequences for the replicability of our field have been overlooked. We discuss the consequences of the above issues on the replicability of our field and offer potential solutions to improve replicability.

The open and transparent documentation of scientific processes has been established as a core antecedent of free knowledge. This also holds for generating robust insights in the scope of research projects. To convince academic peers and the public, the research process must be understandable and retraceable (reproducible), and repeatable (replicable) by others, precluding the inclusion of fluke findings into the canon of insights. In this contribution, we outline what reproducibility and replicability (R&R) could mean in the scope of different disciplines and traditions of research and which significance R&R has for generating insights in these fields. We draw on projects conducted in the scope of the Wikimedia "Open Science Fellows Program" (Fellowship Freies Wissen), an interdisciplinary, long-running funding scheme for projects contributing to open research practices. We identify twelve implemented projects from different disciplines which primarily focused on R&R, and multiple additional projects also touching on R&R. From these projects, we identify patterns and synthesize them into a roadmap of how research projects can achieve R&R across different disciplines. We further outline the ground covered by these projects and propose ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; N = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; N = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present review is the result of a one-day workshop on open science, held at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research in Washington, DC, September 2019. The contributors represent psychophysiological researchers at different career stages and from a wide spectrum of institutions. The state of open science in psychophysiology is discussed from different perspectives, highlighting key challenges, potential benefits, and emerging solutions that are intended to facilitate open science practices. Three domains are emphasized: data sharing, preregistration, and multi-site studies. In the context of these broader domains, we present potential implementations of specific open science procedures such as data format harmonization, power analysis, data, presentation code and analysis pipeline sharing, suitable for psychophysiological research. Practical steps are discussed that may be taken to facilitate the adoption of open science practices in psychophysiology. These steps include (1) promoting broad and accessible training in the skills needed to implement open science practices, such as collaborative research and computational reproducibility initiatives, (2) establishing mechanisms that provide practical assistance in sharing of processing pipelines, presentation code, and data in an efficient way, and (3) improving the incentive structure for open science approaches. Throughout the manuscript, we provide references and links to available resources for those interested in adopting open science practices in their research. • Open science practices in the field of psychophysiology are discussed. • Specific steps are proposed to foster sharing or data and code. • Integrating training, collaboration, funding with open science is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific practices are constantly evolving to meet the best practices and standards available at a point in time. In the current publication environment, advances in communication technology in tandem with concerns about the transparency of extant communication scholarship have encouraged many to reconsider how we share knowledge with one another. Among a broader suite of open science practices, two specific changes have been advocated for: sharing research materials and sharing research data. As part of an ongoing conversation within communication science, this essay summarizes and explains how researchers can critically consider so-called "open materials" and "open data" when publishing in Communication Studies as well as other communication and adjacent journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problemification: This article identifies the drivers of and solutions to the replicability crisis for psychological science and the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP). Implications: The article addresses and discusses possible starting points to tackle the recent replicability crisis and convert it into a chance for psychological research and the SAJIP. Purpose: To combine a discussion about the replicability crisis and how it could improve psychological research standards and journal policies. Recommendations: The article provides recommendation on how to change SAJIP’s policies to increase international visibility.

Objectives: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals., Materials and Methods: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor., Results: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036)., Conclusion: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals., Clinical Significance: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare there is no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Several researchers recently outlined unacknowledged costs of open science practices, arguing these costs may outweigh benefits and stifle discovery of novel findings. We scrutinize these researchers’ (a) statistical concern that heightened stringency with respect to false-positives will increase false-negatives and (b) metascientific concern that larger samples and executing direct replications engender opportunity costs that will decrease the rate of making novel discoveries. We argue their statistical concern is unwarranted given open science proponents recommend such practices to reduce the inflated Type I error rate from .35 down to .05 and simultaneously call for high-powered research to reduce the inflated Type II error rate. Regarding their metaconcern, we demonstrate that incurring some costs is required to increase the rate (and frequency) of making true discoveries because distinguishing true from false hypotheses requires a low Type I error rate, high statistical power, and independent direct replications. We also examine pragmatic concerns raised regarding adopting open science practices for relationship science (preregistration, open materials, open data, direct replications, sample size); while acknowledging these concerns, we argue they are overstated given available solutions. We conclude benefits of open science practices outweigh costs for both individual researchers and the collective field in the long run, but that short term costs may exist for researchers because of the currently dysfunctional academic incentive structure. Our analysis implies our field’s incentive structure needs to change whereby better alignment exists between researcher’s career interests and the field’s cumulative progress. We delineate recent proposals aimed at such incentive structure realignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]