Fast Lane to Slow Science

Future Directions for Community-Engaged Research in Clinical Psychological Science with Youth

Despite advances in clinical science, the burden of mental health problems among youth is not improving. To tackle this burden, clinical science with youth needs methods that include youth and family perspectives on context and public health. In this paper, we illustrate how community-engaged research (CEnR) methods center these perspectives. Although CEnR methods are well-established in other disciplines (e.g. social work, community psychology), they are underutilized in clinical science with youth. This is due in part to misperceptions of CEnR as resource-intensive, overly contextualized, incompatible with experimentally controlled modes of inquiry, or irrelevant to understanding youth mental health. By contrast, CEnR methods can provide real-world impact, contextualized clinical solutions, and sustainable outcomes. A key advantage of CEnR strategies is their flexibility-they fall across a continuum that centers community engagement as a core principle, and thus can be infused in a variety of research efforts, even those that center experimental control (e.g. randomized controlled trials). This paper provides a brief overview of this continuum of strategies and its application to youth-focused clinical science. We then discuss future directions of CEnR in clinical science with youth, as well as structural changes needed to advance this work. The goals of this paper are to help demystify CEnR and encourage clinical scientists to consider adopting methods that better consider context and intentionally engage the communities that our work seeks to serve.

Not so fast with fast funding

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have become increasingly dissatisfied with how science funding is distributed. Traditional grant funding processes are seen as stifling the creativity of researchers, in addition to being bureaucratic, slow, and inefficient. Consequently, there have been increasing popular calls to make "fast funding" - fast, unbureaucratic grant applications - a new standard for scientific funding. Though this approach to funding, implemented by Fast Grants, has been successful as a pandemic response strategy, we believe there are serious costs to its wide-scale adoption, particularly for transparency and equity, and that the purported benefits - increased creativity and efficiency - are unlikely to materialize. While traditional funding mechanisms are certainly not perfect, scientific communities should think twice before adopting fast funding as a new standard for funding.

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.

Beyond kindness: a proposal for the flourishing of science and scientists alike

We argue that many of the crises currently afflicting science can be associated with a present failure of science to sufficiently embody its own values. Here, we propose a response beyond mere crisis resolution based on the observation that an ethical framework of flourishing derived from the Buddhist tradition aligns surprisingly well with the values of science itself. This alignment, we argue, suggests a recasting of science from a competitively managed activity of knowledge production to a collaboratively organized moral practice that puts kindness and sharing at its core. We end by examining how Flourishing Science could be embodied in academic practice, from individual to organizational levels, and how that could help to arrive at a flourishing of scientists and science alike.

Opportunities, challenges and tensions: Open science through a lens of qualitative social psychology

In recent years, there has been a focus in social psychology on efforts to improve the robustness, rigour, transparency and openness of psychological research. This has led to a plethora of new tools, practices and initiatives that each aim to combat questionable research practices and improve the credibility of social psychological scholarship. However, the majority of these efforts derive from quantitative, deductive, hypothesis-testing methodologies, and there has been a notable lack of in-depth exploration about what the tools, practices and values may mean for research that uses qualitative methodologies. Here, we introduce a Special Section of BJSP: Open Science, Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology: Possibilities and Tensions. The authors critically discuss a range of issues, including authorship, data sharing and broader research practices. Taken together, these papers urge the discipline to carefully consider the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of efforts to improve psychological science, and advocate for a critical appreciation of how mainstream open science discourse may (or may not) be compatible with the goals of qualitative research.

The first author takes it all? Solutions for crediting authors more visibly, transparently, and free of bias

With the seventh edition of the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), the APA style now prescribes bias-free language and encourages accessibility even to non-academic audiences. However, even with the newest guidelines, the way we credit authors in psychology remains anachronistic, intransparent, and prone to conflict. It still relies on a sequence-determines-credit approach in the byline, which concurrently is contradicted by the option to consider the last author as the position of the principal investigator depending on the field or journal. Scholars from various disciplines have argued that relying on such norms introduces a considerable amount of error when stakeholders rely on articles for career-relevant decisions. Given the existing recommendations towards a credit-based system, ignoring those issues will further promote bias that could be avoided with rather minor changes to the way we perceive authorship. In this article, we introduce a set of easy-to-implement changes to the manuscript layout that value contribution rather than position. Aimed at fostering transparency, accountability, and equality between authors, establishing those changes would likely benefit all stakeholders in contemporary psychological science.

A Community-Based Approach to Longitudinal Language Research With Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Autistic Young Adults: Lessons Learned and New Directions

PURPOSE

Language and autism research each typically excludes racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) autistic individuals. In addition, in the case of autistic individuals with language impairment, investigators often approach caregivers to discuss research participation, rather than autistic individuals themselves. This gap limits the ecological validity of language research in autism. To address this gap, this clinical focus article describes strategies for engaging REM autistic young adults with language impairment using lessons learned from 5 years of longitudinal research with this population. This approach involved an ongoing community partnership, as well as participatory partnerships with REM autistic individuals and community stakeholders, consistent with a "slow science" approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach yielded excellent retention of participants over 5 years and led to co-development of research projects aimed at priorities described by REM autistic individuals and their families, including understanding self-determination, social determinants of health, and language variability in autistic REM individuals with language impairment. Findings support the utility of community-based methods with autistic REM young adults with language impairment, with key takeaways for diversifying research while replicating, extending, and building theory.

Another implementation science is possible: engaging an 'intelligent public' in knowledge translation

As the world contends with the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise has permeated political discourse and the phrase 'following the science' is being used to build trust and justify government decision-making. This phrase reflects a problematic assumption that there is one objective science to follow and that the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making is inherently neutral. In this article, we examine more closely the dense and intricate relationships, values, politics, and interests that determine whose knowledge counts, who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and with what consequences, in the translation of scientific knowledge. Drawing key insights from Stengers' Manifesto for Slow Science, we argue that implementation science has a central role to play in problematising the historic dominance of certain voices and institutional structures that have come to symbolise trust, rigour, and knowledge. Yet to date, implementation science has tended to overlook these economic, social, historical, and political forces. Fraser's conception of social justice and Jasanoff's 'technologies of humility' are introduced as useful frameworks to extend the capacity of implementation science to engage the broader public as an 'intelligent public' in the translation of knowledge, during and beyond the pandemic.

Towards more relevance in forensic science research and development

Many different issues have been identified in forensic science for more than 10 years. While quality management has often been suggested as a path forward, research is generally considered as an essential part of the solution. Through an overview of current forensic science research, this paper aims at evaluating if and how research answer the challenges forensic science is currently facing. While forensic related publications have massively increased over the years, approximately half of the publications were published in non-forensic sources, indicating that forensic science research tends to be led by other disciplines. Over the years, forensic science research has remained largely oriented towards methodological and technological development rather than relevance to the forensic science discipline and practice. Practical implementation of the techniques is rarely discussed from a forensic perspective, and thus research rarely move from the "proof-of-concept" stage to its utilisation in case investigation. The digital transformation also generated a massive increase of data, making it challenging to find the relevant pieces of information in the mass of "forensic" publications available on-line. Thus, we propose to refocus forensic science research on forensic fundamental and practical questions to strengthen the discipline and its impact on crime investigation and security issues. Our propositions represent an incentive to further discuss forensic science research and knowledge transmission through the definition of a common culture within the community, focusing on common fundamental knowledge such as a better understanding of the concept of trace and its case-based information content.

“It is Very Difficult for us to Separate Ourselves from this System”: Views of European Researchers, Research Managers, Administrators and Governance Advisors on Structural and Institutional Influences on Research Integrity

Research integrity is fundamental to the validity and reliability of scientific findings, and for ethical conduct of research. As part of PRINTEGER (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research), this study explores the views of researchers, research managers, administrators, and governance advisors in Estonia, Italy, Norway and UK, focusing specifically on their understanding of institutional and organisational influences on research integrity.

A total of 16 focus groups were conducted. Thematic analysis of the data revealed that competition is pervasive and appeared in most themes relating to integrity. The structural frameworks for research such as funding, evaluation and publication were thought to both protect and, more commonly, undermine integrity. In addition, institutional systems, including workload and research governance, shaped participants’ day-to-day work environment, also affecting research integrity. Participants also provided ideas for promoting research integrity, including training, and creating conditions that would be supportive of research integrity.

These findings support a shift away from individual blame and towards the need for structural and institutional changes, including organisations in the wider research environment, for example funding bodies and publishing companies.

A social-psychological examination of academic precarity as an organizational practice and subjective experience

Research and teaching conditions have, particularly for those who are junior or from disadvantaged backgrounds, deteriorated considerably over the years in the higher education sector. Unequal opportunities in access and advancement in careers have led to increasing levels of precarity in the higher education sector. Although the concept of precarity has been grasped in many other disciplines, the social-psychological understanding of this concept remains unexplored. In this paper, we aim to develop a social-psychological understanding of precarity to examine how identity dynamics and intergroup relations, as well as associated organizational controls, reinforce inequality regimes and power structures that create precarious conditions in academia. In doing so, we use social identity theory and system justification theory under an inequality regime framework. We argue that even though change towards equality and equity in academia should be possible, it is difficult to achieve this because of entrenched identity interests by power holders and the perceived legitimacy of the existing system. Therefore, academic precarity should be recognized both as a subjective experience and as an organizational practice to make inequalities more visible and decrease the perceptions of legitimacy-and to eventually achieve a fundamental positive transformation in academia.

Rethinking academia in a time of climate crisis

Addressing the climate crisis requires radical and urgent action at all levels of society. Universities are ideally positioned to lead such action but are largely failing to do so. At the same time, many academic scientists find their work impeded by bureaucracy, excessive competitiveness, and a loss of academic freedom. Here, drawing on the framework of "Doughnut Economics," developed by Kate Raworth, we suggest seven new principles for rethinking the norms of scientific practice. Based on these, we propose a call to action, and encourage academics to take concrete steps towards the creation of a flourishing scientific enterprise that is fit for the challenges of the 21^st century.

Good scientific practice in EEG and MEG research: Progress and perspectives

Good scientific practice (GSP) refers to both explicit and implicit rules, recommendations, and guidelines that help scientists to produce work that is of the highest quality at any given time, and to efficiently share that work with the community for further scrutiny or utilization. For experimental research using magneto- and electroencephalography (MEEG), GSP includes specific standards and guidelines for technical competence, which are periodically updated and adapted to new findings. However, GSP also needs to be regularly revisited in a broader light. At the LiveMEEG 2020 conference, a reflection on GSP was fostered that included explicitly documented guidelines and technical advances, but also emphasized intangible GSP: a general awareness of personal, organizational, and societal realities and how they can influence MEEG research. This article provides an extensive report on most of the LiveMEEG contributions and new literature, with the additional aim to synthesize ongoing cultural changes in GSP. It first covers GSP with respect to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, pre-registration as a tool to avoid those and other early pitfalls, and a number of resources to enable collaborative and reproducible research as a general approach to minimize misconceptions. Second, it covers GSP with respect to data acquisition, analysis, reporting, and sharing, including new tools and frameworks to support collaborative work. Finally, GSP is considered in light of ethical implications of MEEG research and the resulting responsibility that scientists have to engage with societal challenges. Considering among other things the benefits of peer review and open access at all stages, the need to coordinate larger international projects, the complexity of MEEG subject matter, and today's prioritization of fairness, privacy, and the environment, we find that current GSP tends to favor collective and cooperative work, for both scientific and for societal reasons.

Advances in human intracranial electroencephalography research, guidelines and good practices

Since the second-half of the twentieth century, intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG), including both electrocorticography (ECoG) and stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG), has provided an intimate view into the human brain. At the interface between fundamental research and the clinic, iEEG provides both high temporal resolution and high spatial specificity but comes with constraints, such as the individual's tailored sparsity of electrode sampling. Over the years, researchers in neuroscience developed their practices to make the most of the iEEG approach. Here we offer a critical review of iEEG research practices in a didactic framework for newcomers, as well addressing issues encountered by proficient researchers. The scope is threefold: (i) review common practices in iEEG research, (ii) suggest potential guidelines for working with iEEG data and answer frequently asked questions based on the most widespread practices, and (iii) based on current neurophysiological knowledge and methodologies, pave the way to good practice standards in iEEG research. The organization of this paper follows the steps of iEEG data processing. The first section contextualizes iEEG data collection. The second section focuses on localization of intracranial electrodes. The third section highlights the main pre-processing steps. The fourth section presents iEEG signal analysis methods. The fifth section discusses statistical approaches. The sixth section draws some unique perspectives on iEEG research. Finally, to ensure a consistent nomenclature throughout the manuscript and to align with other guidelines, e.g., Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) and the OHBM Committee on Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing (COBIDAS), we provide a glossary to disambiguate terms related to iEEG research.

"I Knew She'd Get It, and Get Me": Participants' Perspectives of a Participatory Autism Research Project

Introduction

Autistic advocates and their supporters have long argued that conventional research practices provide too few opportunities for genuine engagement with autistic people, contributing to social disenfranchisement among autistic people. We recently described one attempt to develop and implement a participatory study in which a team of autistic and nonautistic researchers worked together to gather life histories from late-diagnosed autistic people. In the current study, we sought to understand the impact of this participatory approach on the participants themselves.

Methods

We spoke to 25 Australian late-diagnosed autistic adults (aged 45-72 years), who had been interviewed by an autistic researcher using an oral history approach. We asked them about their experience of being involved in that project and the research process more broadly. We thematically analyzed participants' interviews.

Results

Participants responded overwhelmingly positively to the opportunity to tell their life history, considering it illuminating and empowering. While recounting their life history was often described as "exhausting" and "draining," participants also reported feeling "supported all the way" and agreed "it was made easier because I had an autistic researcher interviewing me." One participant went so far as to say that they "probably would have dropped out [of the project] if it was run by people who weren't autistic."

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that the benefits of coproduction to researchers and community partners extend to study participants and to the quality of the research itself. Involving autistic partners in the research process, especially in its implementation, can play a crucial role in enhancing autism research.

Training the Next Generation of Clinical Psychological Scientists: A Data-Driven Call to Action

The central goal of clinical psychology is to reduce the suffering caused by mental health conditions. Anxiety, mood, psychosis, substance use, personality, and other mental disorders impose an immense burden on global public health and the economy. Tackling this burden will require the development and dissemination of intervention strategies that are more effective, sustainable, and equitable. Clinical psychology is uniquely poised to serve as a transdisciplinary hub for this work. But rising to this challengerequires an honest reckoning with the strengths and weaknesses of current training practices. Building on new data, we identify the most important challenges to training the next generation of clinical scientists. We provide specific recommendations for the full spectrum of stakeholders-from funders, accreditors, and universities to program directors, faculty, and students-with an emphasis on sustainable solutions that promote scientific rigor and discovery and enhance the mental health of clinical scientists and the public alike.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Climate crisis and ecological emergency: Why they concern (neuro)scientists, and what we can do

Our planet is experiencing severe and accelerating climate and ecological breakdown caused by human activity. As professional scientists, we are better placed than most to understand the data that evidence this fact. However, like most other people, we ignore this inconvenient truth and lead our daily lives, at home and at work, as if these facts weren’t true. In particular, we overlook that our own neuroscientific research practices, from our laboratory experiments to our often global travel, help drive climate change and ecosystem damage. We also hold privileged positions of authority in our societies but rarely speak out. Here, we argue that to help society create a survivable future, we neuroscientists can and must play our part. In April 2021, we delivered a symposium at the British Neuroscience Association meeting outlining what we think neuroscientists can and should do to help stop climate breakdown. Building on our talks (Box 1), we here outline what the climate and ecological emergencies mean for us as neuroscientists. We highlight the psychological mechanisms that block us from taking action, and then outline what practical steps we can take to overcome these blocks and work towards sustainability. In particular, we review environmental issues in neuroscience research, scientific computing, and conferences. We also highlight the key advocacy roles we can all play in our institutions and in society more broadly. The need for sustainable change has never been more urgent, and we call on all (neuro)scientists to act with the utmost urgency.

Reforms to improve reproducibility and quality must be coordinated across the research ecosystem: the view from the UKRN Local Network Leads

Many disciplines are facing a “reproducibility crisis”, which has precipitated much discussion about how to improve research integrity, reproducibility, and transparency. A unified effort across all sectors, levels, and stages of the research ecosystem is needed to coordinate goals and reforms that focus on open and transparent research practices. Promoting a more positive incentive culture for all ecosystem members is also paramount. In this commentary, we—the Local Network Leads of the UK Reproducibility Network—outline our response to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on research integrity and reproducibility. We argue that coordinated change is needed to create (1) a positive research culture, (2) a unified stance on improving research quality, (3) common foundations for open and transparent research practice, and (4) the routinisation of this practice. For each of these areas, we outline the roles that individuals, institutions, funders, publishers, and Government can play in shaping the research ecosystem. Working together, these constituent members must also partner with sectoral and coordinating organisations to produce effective and long-lasting reforms that are fit-for-purpose and future-proof. These efforts will strengthen research quality and create research capable of generating far-reaching applications with a sustained impact on society.

Sociocultural factors during COVID-19 pandemic: Information consumption on Twitter

The purpose of the research is to describe the sociocultural factors that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Twitter is used as an instrument for data collection. The study is qualitative and uses the netnographic method. To analyze the flow of messages posted on Twitter, the model proposed by Perez-Cepeda and Arias-Bolzmann (2020), which describes sociocultural factors, is taken as a basis. The semantics that people use are a type of functional knowledge that reveals sociocultural factors. Sentiments were analyzed through lexicon-based methods, which are the most suitable. The categorization and classification of the data are performed based on the information that users post on Twitter. The tweets related to COVID-19 describe the sociocultural issues and the level of sentiment around the pandemic. The discussion centers on the COVID-19 pandemic, information consumption, lexicon, sociocultural factors and sentiment analysis. The study was limited to the social media Twitter; another limitation was not to consider the social group of the users who interact with @pandemic_Covid-19, official account of the World Health Organization (WHO). This research contributes to the social sciences, focusing on sociocultural interaction through the use of the social network Twitter. It describes the link between sociocultural factors and the level of sentiment on issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.

Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology

The literature discusses causes of low reproducibility of scientific publications. Our article adds another main cause—uncritical adherence to accepted research procedures. This is evident in: (1) anachronistically requiring researchers to base themselves on theoretical background even if the studies cited were not tested for reproducibility; (2) conducting studies suffering from a novelty effect bias; (3) forcing researchers who use data mining methods and field-based theory, with no preliminary theoretical rationale, to present a theoretical background that allegedly guided their work—as a precondition for publication of their findings. It is possible to increase research validity in relation to the above problems by the following means: (1) Conducting a longitudinal study on the same participants and only on them; (2) Trying to shorten the time period between laboratory experiments and those on humans, based on cost–benefit considerations, anchored in ethical norms; (3) Reporting the theoretical background in a causal modular format; (4) Giving incentives to those who meet the above criteria while moderating the pressure for fast output.

Les pratiques de recherche ouvertes en psychologie

Cet article vise à offrir une vision d’ensemble des récentes évolutions des pratiques de recherche en psychologie. Un rappel des différents symptômes de la crise de la réplicabilité (et de confiance) ayant affecté la psychologie sera suivi par une discussion approfondie et nuancée des facteurs responsables de cette situation. Il s’agira ensuite, en s’appuyant sur des illustrations et des ressources, de démontrer le rôle crucial des pratiques de recherche ouvertes comme moyen de résoudre ces difficultés. La connaissance et l’adoption de ces pratiques de recherche popularisées par le mouvement de la science ouverte sont indispensables afin de contribuer, via la transparence et l’ouverture, à l’effort collectif d’amélioration de la fiabilité et de la réplicabilité des résultats en psychologie.

The black crow of science and its impact: analyzing Sci-Hub use with Google Trends

Purpose

In 2016, Bohannon published an article analyzing the download rate of the top ten countries using the illegal Sci-Hub website. Four years later, this study approaches the search behavior of these ten countries as they query about Sci-Hub in Google's search engine, the world's most widely used search engine. The authors also tracked the possible consequences of using Sci-Hub, such as plagiarism.

Design/methodology/approach

The search terms “Sci-Hub”, “Plagiarism” and “Plagiarism Checker” were explored with Google Trends. The queries were performed globally and individually for the ten target countries, all categories and web searches. The time range was limited between 1/1/2016 (after the date of publication of Bohannon's work) and 29/03/2020. Data were extracted from Google Trends and the findings were mapped.

Findings

Searching for the word Sci-Hub on Google has increased nearly eightfold worldwide in the last four years, with China, Ethiopia and Tunisia having the most searches. Sci-Hub's search trends increased for most of the T10C, with Brazil and Iran having the highest and lowest average searches, respectively.

Originality/value

Access to the research literature is required to the progress of research, but it should not be obtained illegally. Given the increasing incidence of these problems in countries at any level of development, it is important to pay attention to ethics education in research and establish ethics committees. A comprehensive review of the research process is required to reduce the urge to circumvent copyright laws and includes training and educating research stakeholders in copyright literacy. To address these goals, national and international seriousness and enthusiasm are essential.

Opportunities for increased reproducibility and replicability of developmental neuroimaging

Many workflows and tools that aim to increase the reproducibility and replicability of research findings have been suggested. In this review, we discuss the opportunities that these efforts offer for the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience, in particular developmental neuroimaging. We focus on issues broadly related to statistical power and to flexibility and transparency in data analyses. Critical considerations relating to statistical power include challenges in recruitment and testing of young populations, how to increase the value of studies with small samples, and the opportunities and challenges related to working with large-scale datasets. Developmental studies involve challenges such as choices about age groupings, lifespan modelling, analyses of longitudinal changes, and data that can be processed and analyzed in a multitude of ways. Flexibility in data acquisition, analyses and description may thereby greatly impact results. We discuss methods for improving transparency in developmental neuroimaging, and how preregistration can improve methodological rigor. While outlining challenges and issues that may arise before, during, and after data collection, solutions and resources are highlighted aiding to overcome some of these. Since the number of useful tools and techniques is ever-growing, we highlight the fact that many practices can be implemented stepwise.

[The contribution of Open Science to the quality of educational research]

The starting point of this paper are the discussions of the robustness of empirical findings in related disciplines, namely social psychology, which culminated in the so-called "replication crisis". These discussions about replication and "questionable research practices" have only started to reach the educational sciences. At the same time, parts of the educational sciences are prone to the same problems as related disciplines. Therefore, it may only be a matter of time before these controversies also arise in the educational sciences. Against this backdrop, we argue how Open Science can contribute to increasing the robustness of educational sciences' findings. In particular, we suggest three Open Science practices: Pre-registration, Open Materials and Open Data. We present these practices and examine how researchers can implement these Open Science practices in the educational sciences. We discuss the specific conditions of the educational sciences in comparison to related disciplines and address the limitations and particularities of the educational sciences. We conclude with a plea for transparency.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and the Understanding of Behavior

The development of the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the study of psychological functions has entered a new phase of sophistication. This is largely due to an increasing physiological knowledge of its effects and to its being used in combination with other experimental techniques. This review presents the current state of our understanding of the mechanisms of TMS in the context of designing and interpreting psychological experiments. We discuss the major conceptual advances in behavioral studies using TMS. There are meaningful physiological and technical achievements to review, as well as a wealth of new perceptual and cognitive experiments. In doing so we summarize the different uses and challenges of TMS in mental chronometry, perception, awareness, learning, and memory.

Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Time to acceptance from submission and time to publication (publication lag) determines how quickly novel information is made available to other scientists and experts. In the medical field, the review process and revisions usually takes 3–4 months; the total time from submission to publication is 8–9 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, information should be available much faster. The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten. The median time to acceptance was three days for all publications, six days for research papers and reviews, four days for case studies and two days for other publication types. The median publication lag was nine days for all publications together, 11 days for research papers, nine days for case studies, 13 days for reviews and seven days for other publications. This demonstrates that the publication process—if necessary—can be sped up. For the sake of scientific accuracy, review times should not be pushed down, but the time from acceptance to actual publication could be shorter.

Commentary: Broadening the research remit of participatory methods in autism science - a commentary on Happé and Frith (2020)

Autism science has transformed beyond recognition in the last two decades. International investment has grown extensively and the number of papers published on autism has increased 10-fold (Pellicano et al., 2014), far surpassing publications on related topics. The sheer amount of scientific research on autism has no doubt been instrumental in many of the discoveries and insights so eloquently described by Happé and Frith (2020). But, as autistic scientist Michelle Dawson reminds us, quality matters too and, for that reason, it is a delight to recognise the contribution that both Happé and Frith have made, dramatically changing our understanding of autism in a host of ways.