scholarly journals (Re)Building Trust? Journals’ Open Science Badges Influence Trust in Scientists.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Schneider ◽  
Tom Rosman ◽  
Augustin Kelava ◽  
Samuel Merk
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Epistemic Beliefs ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Title Pages ◽  
Moderating Role

As a response to the replication crisis, reforms call for the implementation of open science standards. In this regard, open science badges are a promising method to signal a study’s adherence to open science practices (OSP). In an experimental study, we investigated whether badges on journal article title pages affect non-scientists’ trust in scientists. Furthermore, we analyzed the moderating role of epistemic beliefs in this regard. We randomly assigned 270 non-scientists to two of three conditions: Badges awarded (visible compliance to OSP), badges not awarded (visible non-compliance to OSP) and no badges (compliance not visible, control condition). Results indicate that badges influence trust in scientists as well as the epistemic beliefs of participants. However, epistemic beliefs did not moderate the effect of badges on trust. In sum, our paper provides support to the notion that badges are an effective means to promote epistemic beliefs and trust in scientists.

scholarly journals Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Jane Charles ◽  
James Edward Bartlett ◽  
Kyle J. Messick ◽  
Thomas Joseph Coleman ◽  
Alex Uzdavines
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Psychology Of Religion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
The Way

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

The Role of Open Science Practices in Scaling Evidence-Based Prevention Programs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Robert T. Ammerman ◽  
Anne K. Duggan ◽  
John A. List ◽  
Dana Suskind
Keyword(s):  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices

Open science reforms: Strengths, challenges, and future directions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn R. Wentzel
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Impact

In this article, I comment on the potential benefits and limitations of open science reforms for improving the transparency and accountability of research, and enhancing the credibility of research findings within communities of policy and practice. Specifically, I discuss the role of replication and reproducibility of research in promoting better quality studies, the identification of generalizable principles, and relevance for practitioners and policymakers. Second, I suggest that greater attention to theory might contribute to the impact of open science practices, and discuss ways in which theory has implications for sampling, measurement and research design. Ambiguities concerning the aims of preregistration and registered reports also are highlighted. In conclusion, I discuss structural roadblocks to open science reform and reflect on the relevance of these reforms for educational psychology.

scholarly journals The past, present, and future of ego depletion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scientific Status ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what is suggests about ego depletion; but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

scholarly journals ‘Trust Us’: Open Data and Preregistration in Political Science and International Relations

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bermond Scoggins ◽  
Matthew Peter Robertson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Statistical Inference ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Replication Crisis

The scientific method is predicated on transparency -- yet the pace at which transparent research practices are being adopted by the scientific community is slow. The replication crisis in psychology showed that published findings employing statistical inference are threatened by undetected errors, data manipulation, and data falsification. To mitigate these problems and bolster research credibility, open data and preregistration have increasingly been adopted in the natural and social sciences. While many political science and international relations journals have committed to implementing these reforms, the extent of open science practices is unknown. We bring large-scale text analysis and machine learning classifiers to bear on the question. Using population-level data -- 93,931 articles across the top 160 political science and IR journals between 2010 and 2021 -- we find that approximately 21% of all statistical inference papers have open data, and 5% of all experiments are preregistered. Despite this shortfall, the example of leading journals in the field shows that change is feasible and can be effected quickly.

scholarly journals Trusting on the Shoulders of Open Giants? Open Science Increases Trust in Science for the Public and Academics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Total N ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Science Movement

Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science practices for improving the credibility of research studies, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science practices. In the current package of studies, we examined how open science can increase trust in science for the public and academics as well. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,214), we manipulated journal article abstracts to contain descriptions of open science practices or not. Across all studies, open science research was perceived as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science research. Study 2 explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research, though we did not find evidence for this claim. Finally, Study 3 examined perceptions of open science from communication science scholars and observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research, though the effect was only pronounced for early career researchers. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

scholarly journals The Past, Present, and Future of Ego Depletion

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 370-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

Abstract. At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion and Self-Control: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what it suggests about ego depletion, but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices, we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

scholarly journals How open science can benefit bilingualism research: A lesson in six tales

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Dal Ben ◽  
Melanie Brouillard ◽  
Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero ◽  
Hilary Killam ◽  
Lena V. Kremin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Recent Discussion ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Do So

Bilingualism is hard to define, measure, and study. Sparked by the so-called replication crisis in the social sciences, a recent discussion on the advantages of open science is gaining momentum. Here we join this debate to argue that bilingualism research would greatly benefit from embracing open science. We do so in a unique way, by presenting six fictional stories that illustrate how open science practices — sharing preprints, materials, code, and data; pre-registering studies; and joining large-scale collaborations — can strengthen bilingualism research and further improve its quality.

What do incoming university students believe about open science practices in psychology?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Beaudry ◽  
Matt N Williams ◽  
Michael Carl Philipp ◽  
Emily Jane Kothe
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Incoming Students ◽  
Teaching Implications

Background: Understanding students’ naive conceptions about how science works and the norms that guide scientific best practice is important so that teachers can adapt their teaching to students’ existing understandings. Objective: To describe what incoming undergraduate students of psychology believe about reproducibility and open science practices in psychology. Method: International online survey with participants who were about to start their first course in psychology at a university (N = 239). Results: When asked about how research should be done, most students endorsed most (but not all) of ten open science practices. When asked to estimate the proportion of published psychological studies that apply each of a set of 10 open science practices, participants’ estimates tended to average near 50%. Only 18% of participants had heard of the term “replication crisis.” Conclusion: Despite relatively significant media attention on the replication crisis, few incoming psychology students are familiar with the term. Incoming students nevertheless appear to be sympathetic toward most open science practices, although they may overestimate the prevalence of these practices in psychology. Teaching Implications: Teaching materials aimed at incoming psychology students should not assume pre-existing knowledge about open science or replicability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document