Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Daily life in the Open Biologist's second job, as a Data Curator

Background

Data reusability is the driving force of the research data life cycle. However, implementing strategies to generate reusable data from the data creation to the sharing stages is still a significant challenge. Even when datasets supporting a study are publicly shared, the outputs are often incomplete and/or not reusable. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles were published as a general guidance to promote data reusability in research, but the practical implementation of FAIR principles in research groups is still falling behind. In biology, the lack of standard practices for a large diversity of data types, data storage and preservation issues, and the lack of familiarity among researchers are some of the main impeding factors to achieve FAIR data. Past literature describes biological curation from the perspective of data resources that aggregate data, often from publications.

Methods

Our team works alongside data-generating, experimental researchers so our perspective aligns with publication authors rather than aggregators. We detail the processes for organizing datasets for publication, showcasing practical examples from data curation to data sharing. We also recommend strategies, tools and web resources to maximize data reusability, while maintaining research productivity.

Conclusion

We propose a simple approach to address research data management challenges for experimentalists, designed to promote FAIR data sharing. This strategy not only simplifies data management, but also enhances data visibility, recognition and impact, ultimately benefiting the entire scientific community.

A how-to guide for code sharing in biology

In 2024, all biology is computational biology. Computer-aided analysis continues to spread into new fields, becoming more accessible to researchers trained in the wet lab who are eager to take advantage of growing datasets, falling costs, and novel assays that present new opportunities for discovery. It is currently much easier to find guidance for implementing these techniques than for reporting their use, leaving biologists to guess which details and files are relevant. In this essay, we review existing literature on the topic, summarize common tips, and link to additional resources for training. Following this overview, we then provide a set of recommendations for sharing code, with an eye toward guiding those who are comparatively new to applying open science principles to their computational work. Taken together, we provide a guide for biologists who seek to follow code sharing best practices but are unsure where to start.

Meta-analysis of variance in tDCS effects on response inhibition

Deficiencies in response inhibition are associated with numerous mental health conditions, warranting innovative treatments. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, modulates cortical excitability and has shown promise in improving response inhibition. However, tDCS effects on response inhibition often yield contradictory findings. Previous research emphasized the importance of inter-individual factors that are mostly ignored in conventional meta-analyses of mean effects. We aimed to fill this gap and promote the complementary use of the coefficient of variation ratio and standardized mean effects. The systematic literature search included single-session and sham-controlled tDCS studies utilizing stop-signal task or Go-NoGo tasks, analyzing 88 effect sizes from 53 studies. Considering the impact of inter-individual factors, we hypothesized that variances increase in the active versus sham tDCS. However, the results showed that variances between both groups did not differ. Additionally, analyzing standardized mean effects supported previous research showing an improvement in the stop-signal task but not in the Go-NoGo task following active tDCS. These findings suggest that inter-individual differences do not increase variances in response inhibition, implying that the heterogeneity cannot be attributed to higher variance in response inhibition during and after active tDCS. Furthermore, methodological considerations are crucial for tDCS efficacy.

Effects of Statistical Practices for Longitudinal Group Comparison of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale on Power and Effect Size Estimation: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study

Multiple bolus trials are administered during clinical and research swallowing assessments to comprehensively capture an individual's swallowing function. Despite valuable information obtained from these boluses, it remains common practice to use a single bolus (e.g., the worst score) to describe the degree of dysfunction. Researchers also often collapse continuous or ordinal swallowing measures into categories, potentially exacerbating information loss. These practices may adversely affect statistical power to detect and estimate smaller, yet potentially meaningful, treatment effects. This study sought to examine the impact of aggregating and categorizing penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) scores on statistical power and effect size estimates. We used a Monte Carlo approach to simulate three hypothetical within-subject treatment studies in Parkinson's disease and head and neck cancer across a range of data characteristics (e.g., sample size, number of bolus trials, variability). Different statistical models (aggregated or multilevel) as well as various PAS reduction approaches (i.e., types of categorizations) were performed to examine their impact on power and the accuracy of effect size estimates. Across all scenarios, multilevel models demonstrated higher statistical power to detect group-level longitudinal change and more accurate estimates compared to aggregated (worst score) models. Categorizing PAS scores also reduced power and biased effect size estimates compared to an ordinal approach, though this depended on the type of categorization and baseline PAS distribution. Multilevel models should be considered as a more robust approach for the statistical analysis of multiple boluses administered in standardized swallowing protocols due to its high sensitivity and accuracy to compare group-level changes in swallowing function. Importantly, this finding appears to be consistent across patient populations with distinct pathophysiology (i.e., PD and HNC) and patterns of airway invasion. The decision to categorize a continuous or ordinal outcome should be grounded in the clinical or research question with recognition that scale reduction may negatively affect the quality of statistical inferences in certain scenarios.

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste

An estimated 82-89% of ecological research and 85% of medical research has limited or no value to the end user because of various inefficiencies. We argue that registration and registered reports can enhance the quality and impact of ecological research. Drawing on evidence from other fields, chiefly medicine, we support our claim that registration can reduce research waste. However, increasing registration rates, quality and impact will be very slow without coordinated effort of funders, publishers and research institutions. We therefore call on them to facilitate the adoption of registration by providing adequate support. We outline several aspects to be considered when designing a registration system that would best serve the field of ecology. To further inform the development of such a system, we call for more research to identify the causes of low registration rates in ecology. We suggest short- and long-term actions to bolster registration and reduce research waste.

Daylight saving time was not associated with a change in suicide rates in Austria, Switzerland and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Some studies have reported an increase in suicides after the start of daylight saving time (DST), but the evidence is mixed and more research about proposed mechanisms (disrupted sleep, changing light exposure) is needed.

METHODS

In our preregistered study, we analyzed change in suicide rates in the 2 weeks before/after DST, based on data between 1980 and 2022 from Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, using Poisson regression models and changepoint analyses. To explore the impact of disrupted sleep, we repeated the analysis for retired people who are likely less bound to DST, and for younger people. To explore the effect of changed daylight exposure, we repeated the analysis for northern and southern regions because twilight and daylight exposure varies by latitude.

RESULTS

Suicide rates did not significantly increase after the start of DST (adjusted incidence rate ratio IRR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.06, P = 0.66, n = 13 362 suicides) or after DST ended (adjusted IRR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.07, P = 0.76, n = 12 319 suicides). There were no statistically significant findings among younger or older subgroups and also not in Sweden and Austria/Switzerland. No changepoints were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant changes in suicide rates associated with DST and no clear evidence to support proposed mechanisms (light exposure, disruption of sleep). Our study is one of the largest and was adequately powered. Nonetheless, even larger studies to detect smaller effects could be important to inform the debate about harms and benefits of DST.

A Case for the Use of Open Data as a Tool to Incorporate Socioscientific Topics into Neuroscience Education

Education scholars have called for an increased focus on developing curricula based on culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). A key tenet of Ladson-Billings' (1995; 2014) theory of culturally relevant pedagogy is the development of students' sociopolitical consciousness, whereby students feel empowered and encouraged to evaluate and solve real-world interdisciplinary problems. Here, we propose that open science datasets could serve as a valuable tool for neuroscience educators to foster their students' sociopolitical consciousness. Using the open data available through the Seattle Alzheimer's Disease Brain Cell Atlas (SEA-AD) as a case study, this article will explore how open science can be leveraged as a tool to encourage socioscientific thinking amongst neuroscience students. We overview a collection of lessons created by the Allen Institute's Education & Engagement team that provides a scaffolded exploration of an open science resource through a socioscientific lens. We supplement our discussion of the lessons with feedback from students who completed the lessons during a day-long workshop hosted at the Allen Institute in Seattle, WA. We conclude by reflecting on the future role this type of interdisciplinary, open science-based approach to curricula could have across neuroscience education more broadly.

Synthesis of sexual selection: a systematic map of meta-analyses with bibliometric analysis

Sexual selection has been a popular subject within evolutionary biology because of its central role in explaining odd and counterintuitive traits observed in nature. Consequently, the literature associated with this field of study became vast. Meta-analytical studies attempting to draw inferences from this literature have now accumulated, varying in scope and quality, thus calling for a synthesis of these syntheses. We conducted a systematic literature search to create a systematic map with a report appraisal of meta-analyses on topics associated with sexual selection, aiming to identify the conceptual and methodological gaps in this secondary literature. We also conducted bibliometric analyses to explore whether these gaps are associated with the gender and origin of the authors of these meta-analyses. We included 152 meta-analytical studies in our systematic map. We found that most meta-analyses focused on males and on certain animal groups (e.g. birds), indicating severe sex and taxonomic biases. The topics in these studies varied greatly, from proximate (e.g. relationship of ornaments with other traits) to ultimate questions (e.g. formal estimates of sexual selection strength), although the former were more common. We also observed several common methodological issues in these studies, such as lack of detailed information regarding searches, screening, and analyses, which ultimately impairs the reliability of many of these meta-analyses. In addition, most of the meta-analyses' authors were men affiliated to institutions from developed countries, pointing to both gender and geographical authorship biases. Most importantly, we found that certain authorship aspects were associated with conceptual and methodological issues in meta-analytical studies. Many of our findings might simply reflect patterns in the current state of the primary literature and academia, suggesting that our study can serve as an indicator of issues within the field of sexual selection at large. Based on our findings, we provide both conceptual and analytical recommendations to improve future studies in the field of sexual selection.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

Background

The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?'

Aims

To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

Results

1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

Conclusions

There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Photoactivated Chromophore for Keratitis-Corneal Cross-linking (PACK-CXL)-A Scoping Review Based on Preclinical Studies

Purpose

Photoactivated chromophore for keratitis-corneal cross-linking (PACK-CXL) stabilizes the corneal stroma and eliminates microorganisms. Numerous PACK-CXL protocols, using different energy sources and chromophores, have been applied in preclinical studies, including live animal studies, with various experimental designs and endpoints. So far, a systematic mapping of the applied protocols and consistency across studies seems lacking but is essential to guide future research.

Methods

The scoping review protocol was in line with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Electronic databases were searched (Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) to identify eligible records, followed by a two-step selection process (title and abstract screening, full text screening) for record inclusion. We extracted information on (1) different PACK-CXL protocol characteristics; (2) infectious pathogens tested; (3) study designs and experimental settings; and (4) endpoints used to determine antimicrobial and tissue stabilizing effects. The information was charted in frequency maps.

Results

The searches yielded 3654 unique records, 233 of which met the inclusion criteria. With 103 heterogeneous endpoints, the researchers investigated a wide range of PACK-CXL protocols. The tested microorganisms reflected pathogens commonly associated with infectious keratitis. Bacterial solutions and infectious keratitis rabbit models were the most widely used models to study the antimicrobial effects of PACK-CXL.

Conclusions

If preclinical PACK-CXL studies are to guide future translational research, further cross-disciplinary efforts are needed to establish, promote, and facilitate acceptance of common endpoints relevant to PACK-CXL.

Translational Relevance

Systematic mapping of PACK-CXL protocols in preclinical studies guides future translational research.

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration

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.

Demystifying Open Science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: a practical guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes

Open Science practices are integral to increasing transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Drives to facilitate Open Science practices are becoming increasingly evident in journal editorial policies, including the establishment of new paper formats such as Registered Reports and Data Notes. This paper provides: (i) an overview of the current state of Open Science policies within health psychology and behavioral medicine, (ii) a call for submissions to an Article Collection of Registered Reports and Data Notes as new paper formats within the journal of Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, (iii) an overview of Registered Reports and Data Notes, and (iv) practical considerations for authors and reviewers of Registered Reports and Data Notes.

Impact of redefining statistical significance on P-hacking and false positive rates: An agent-based model

In recent years, concern has grown about the inappropriate application and interpretation of P values, especially the use of P<0.05 to denote "statistical significance" and the practice of P-hacking to produce results below this threshold and selectively reporting these in publications. Such behavior is said to be a major contributor to the large number of false and non-reproducible discoveries found in academic journals. In response, it has been proposed that the threshold for statistical significance be changed from 0.05 to 0.005. The aim of the current study was to use an evolutionary agent-based model comprised of researchers who test hypotheses and strive to increase their publication rates in order to explore the impact of a 0.005 P value threshold on P-hacking and published false positive rates. Three scenarios were examined, one in which researchers tested a single hypothesis, one in which they tested multiple hypotheses using a P<0.05 threshold, and one in which they tested multiple hypotheses using a P<0.005 threshold. Effects sizes were varied across models and output assessed in terms of researcher effort, number of hypotheses tested and number of publications, and the published false positive rate. The results supported the view that a more stringent P value threshold can serve to reduce the rate of published false positive results. Researchers still engaged in P-hacking with the new threshold, but the effort they expended increased substantially and their overall productivity was reduced, resulting in a decline in the published false positive rate. Compared to other proposed interventions to improve the academic publishing system, changing the P value threshold has the advantage of being relatively easy to implement and could be monitored and enforced with minimal effort by journal editors and peer reviewers.

Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit

BACKGROUND

Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS).

METHODS

CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals.

RESULTS

A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8.

CONCLUSION

While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

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.

P-hacking in meta-analyses: A formalization and new meta-analytic methods

As traditionally conceived, publication bias arises from selection operating on a collection of individually unbiased estimates. A canonical form of such selection across studies (SAS) is the preferential publication of affirmative studies (i.e., those with significant, positive estimates) versus nonaffirmative studies (i.e., those with nonsignificant or negative estimates). However, meta-analyses can also be compromised by selection within studies (SWS), in which investigators "p-hack" results within their study to obtain an affirmative estimate. Published estimates can then be biased even conditional on affirmative status, which comprises the performance of existing methods that only consider SAS. We propose two new analysis methods that accommodate joint SAS and SWS; both analyze only the published nonaffirmative estimates. First, we propose estimating the underlying meta-analytic mean by fitting "right-truncated meta-analysis" (RTMA) to the published nonaffirmative estimates. This method essentially imputes the entire underlying distribution of population effects. Second, we propose conducting a standard meta-analysis of only the nonaffirmative studies (MAN); this estimate is conservative (negatively biased) under weakened assumptions. We provide an R package (phacking) and website (metabias.io). Our proposed methods supplement existing methods by assessing the robustness of meta-analyses to joint SAS and SWS.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

Experience-dependent neurodevelopment of self-regulation in adolescence

Adolescence is a period of rapid biobehavioral change, characterized in part by increased neural maturation and sensitivity to one's environment. In this review, we aim to demonstrate that self-regulation skills are tuned by adolescents' social, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts. We discuss adjacent literatures that demonstrate the importance of experience-dependent learning for adolescent development: environmental contextual influences and training paradigms that aim to improve regulation skills. We first highlight changes in prominent limbic and cortical regions-like the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex-as well as structural and functional connectivity between these areas that are associated with adolescents' regulation skills. Next, we consider how puberty, the hallmark developmental milestone in adolescence, helps instantiate these biobehavioral adaptations. We then survey the existing literature demonstrating the ways in which cultural, socioeconomic, and interpersonal contexts drive behavioral and neural adaptation for self-regulation. Finally, we highlight promising results from regulation training paradigms that suggest training may be especially efficacious for adolescent samples. In our conclusion, we highlight some exciting frontiers in human self-regulation research as well as recommendations for improving the methodological implementation of developmental neuroimaging studies and training paradigms.

Interpersonal neural synchrony and mental disorders: unlocking potential pathways for clinical interventions

Introduction

Interpersonal synchronization involves the alignment of behavioral, affective, physiological, and brain states during social interactions. It facilitates empathy, emotion regulation, and prosocial commitment. Mental disorders characterized by social interaction dysfunction, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), often exhibit atypical synchronization with others across multiple levels. With the introduction of the "second-person" neuroscience perspective, our understanding of interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) has improved, however, so far, it has hardly impacted the development of novel therapeutic interventions.

Methods

To evaluate the potential of INS-based treatments for mental disorders, we performed two systematic literature searches identifying studies that directly target INS through neurofeedback (12 publications; 9 independent studies) or brain stimulation techniques (7 studies), following PRISMA guidelines. In addition, we narratively review indirect INS manipulations through behavioral, biofeedback, or hormonal interventions. We discuss the potential of such treatments for ASD, RAD, and SAD and using a systematic database search assess the acceptability of neurofeedback (4 studies) and neurostimulation (4 studies) in patients with social dysfunction.

Results

Although behavioral approaches, such as engaging in eye contact or cooperative actions, have been shown to be associated with increased INS, little is known about potential long-term consequences of such interventions. Few proof-of-concept studies have utilized brain stimulation techniques, like transcranial direct current stimulation or INS-based neurofeedback, showing feasibility and preliminary evidence that such interventions can boost behavioral synchrony and social connectedness. Yet, optimal brain stimulation protocols and neurofeedback parameters are still undefined. For ASD, RAD, or SAD, so far no randomized controlled trial has proven the efficacy of direct INS-based intervention techniques, although in general brain stimulation and neurofeedback methods seem to be well accepted in these patient groups.

Discussion

Significant work remains to translate INS-based manipulations into effective treatments for social interaction disorders. Future research should focus on mechanistic insights into INS, technological advancements, and rigorous design standards. Furthermore, it will be key to compare interventions directly targeting INS to those targeting other modalities of synchrony as well as to define optimal target dyads and target synchrony states in clinical interventions.

Editorial Perspective: Misaligned incentives in mental health research - the case for Registered Reports

Current incentive structures reward mental health researchers for producing positive, novel, and clean results. This can promote questionable research practices which contribute to a distorted evidence base, in turn limiting progress in mental health research. Registered Reports (RRs) offer a solution to realign the incentives towards conducting high-quality, rigorous, and accurate studies, by preventing publication and reporting biases. However, the uptake of RRs in mental health research has so far been limited. This editorial perspective highlights the advantages of RRs for mental health research, before discussing potential challenges and how they can be addressed. Greater uptake of RRs in mental health research could help to promote a fairer research culture, limit publication bias and questionable research practices, and ultimately, improve understanding of mental health.

Use of Open Science Practices in Surgical Journals

This cross-sectional study assesses the level of adoption of 5 new tools that promote high quality and transparency in surgical research.

Finding the right power balance: Better study design and collaboration can reduce dependence on statistical power

Power analysis currently dominates sample size determination for experiments, particularly in grant and ethics applications. Yet, this focus could paradoxically result in suboptimal study design because publication biases towards studies with the largest effects can lead to the overestimation of effect sizes. In this Essay, we propose a paradigm shift towards better study designs that focus less on statistical power. We also advocate for (pre)registration and obligatory reporting of all results (regardless of statistical significance), better facilitation of team science and multi-institutional collaboration that incorporates heterogenization, and the use of prospective and living meta-analyses to generate generalizable results. Such changes could make science more effective and, potentially, more equitable, helping to cultivate better collaborations.

Open Developmental Science: An Overview and Annotated Reading List

The increasing adoption of open science practices in the last decade has been changing the scientific landscape across fields. However, developmental science has been relatively slow in adopting open science practices. To address this issue, we followed the format of Crüwell et al., (2019) and created summaries and an annotated list of informative and actionable resources discussing ten topics in developmental science: Open science; Reproducibility and replication; Open data, materials and code; Open access; Preregistration; Registered reports; Replication; Incentives; Collaborative developmental science. This article offers researchers and students in developmental science a starting point for understanding how open science intersects with developmental science. After getting familiarized with this article, the developmental scientist should understand the core tenets of open and reproducible developmental science, and feel motivated to start applying open science practices in their workflow.

Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapist Journals

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapist journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor (JIF).

METHODS

Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapist journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their JIF was determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-five journals' author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0 to 8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. TOP factor scores were a significant predictor of JIF scores.

CONCLUSION

There is low implementation of the TOP standards by physical therapist journals. TOP factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for JIF scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists.

IMPACT

Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.

The landscape of open science in behavioral addiction research: Current practices and future directions

Open science refers to a set of practices that aim to make scientific research more transparent, accessible, and reproducible, including pre-registration of study protocols, sharing of data and materials, the use of transparent research methods, and open access publishing. In this commentary, we describe and evaluate the current state of open science practices in behavioral addiction research. We highlight the specific value of open science practices for the field; discuss recent field-specific meta-scientific reviews that show the adoption of such practices remains in its infancy; address the challenges to engaging with open science; and make recommendations for how researchers, journals, and scientific institutions can work to overcome these challenges and promote high-quality, transparently reported behavioral addiction research. By collaboratively promoting open science practices, the field can create a more sustainable and productive research environment that benefits both the scientific community and society as a whole.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Measuring the Impact of Data Sharing: From Author-Level Metrics to Quantification of Economic and Non-tangible Benefits

In early 2023, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented its Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy, requiring researchers to share scientific data produced with NIH funding. The policy's objective is to amplify the benefits of public investment in research by promoting the dissemination and reusability of primary data. Given this backdrop, identifying a robust methodology to assess the impact of data sharing across diverse research domains is essential. In this review, we adopted two methodological paradigms, the bottom-up and top-down strategies, and employed content analysis to pinpoint established methodologies and innovative practices within this intricate field. Although numerous author-level metrics are available to gauge the impact of data sharing, their application is still limited. Non-traditional metrics, encompassing economic (e.g., cost savings) and intangible benefits, presently appear to hold more potential for evaluating the impact of primary data sharing. Finally, we address the primary obstacles encountered by open data policies and introduce an innovative "Shared model for shared data" framework to bolster data sharing practices and refine evaluation metrics.

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions

Reproducible research and open science practices have the potential to accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs, and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. However, these practices are uncommon in many fields, so there is a clear need for training that helps and encourages researchers to integrate reproducible research and open science practices into their daily work. Here, we outline eleven strategies for making training in these practices the norm at research institutions. The strategies, which emerged from a virtual brainstorming event organized in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, are concentrated in three areas: (i) adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements; (ii) training; (iii) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation, and provide links to resources. We also highlight the importance of allocating resources and monitoring impact. Our goal is to encourage researchers - in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees - to think creatively about the many ways they can promote reproducible research and open science practices in their institutions.

Registered Reports in Child Development: Introduction to the Special Section

Registered Reports (RRs) are an emerging format for publishing empirical journal articles in which the decision to publish an article is based on sound conceptualization, methods, and planned analyses rather than the specific nature of the results. This article introduces the Special Section on Registered Reports in Child Development by describing what RRs are and why they are necessary, outlining the thought process that guided the Special Section, describing key thematic insights across the eight articles included in the collection, and providing recommendations for developmental researchers interested in publishing via the RR format. This article also serves as a formal announcement that RRs will be a standard publishing option at Child Development, effective immediately.

Partnering with health sciences libraries to address challenges in bioimaging data management and sharing

Federal mandates, publishing requirements, and an interest in open science have all generated renewed attention on research data management and, in particular, data sharing practices. Due to the size and types of data they produce, bioimaging researchers confront specific challenges in aligning their data with FAIR principles, ensuring that it is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Although not always recognized by researchers, libraries can, and have been, offering support for data throughout its lifecycle by assisting with data management planning, acquisition, processing and analysis, and sharing and reuse of data. Libraries can educate researchers on best practices for research data management and sharing, facilitate connections to experts by coordinating sessions using peer educators and appropriate vendors, help assess the needs of different researcher groups to identify challenges or gaps, recommend appropriate repositories to make data as accessible as possible, and comply with funder and publisher requirements. As a centralized service within an institution, health sciences libraries have the capability to bridge silos and connect bioimaging researchers with specialized data support across campus and beyond.

Reproducibility in Neuroimaging Analysis: Challenges and Solutions

Recent years have marked a renaissance in efforts to increase research reproducibility in psychology, neuroscience, and related fields. Reproducibility is the cornerstone of a solid foundation of fundamental research-one that will support new theories built on valid findings and technological innovation that works. The increased focus on reproducibility has made the barriers to it increasingly apparent, along with the development of new tools and practices to overcome these barriers. Here, we review challenges, solutions, and emerging best practices with a particular emphasis on neuroimaging studies. We distinguish 3 main types of reproducibility, discussing each in turn. Analytical reproducibility is the ability to reproduce findings using the same data and methods. Replicability is the ability to find an effect in new datasets, using the same or similar methods. Finally, robustness to analytical variability refers to the ability to identify a finding consistently across variation in methods. The incorporation of these tools and practices will result in more reproducible, replicable, and robust psychological and brain research and a stronger scientific foundation across fields of inquiry.

Teaching andtrainingwithopenscience: from classroom teaching tool to professional development

In order foropenscienceto reach its full potential to reduce barriers inscienceand increase access to the field, data and tools need to be accompanied bytrainingand other supporting resources to make them truly accessible to prospective and new users. Further, these educational resources must be tailored to meet the needs of many different user profiles, such as neuroscientists of many specialties, computational scientists, and educators. In thisarticle, we will describe some of the approaches the Allen Institute has taken to support working scientists, students, and educators at multiple career stages and paths to use ouropenscienceresources.

Teaching students to R3eason, not merely to solve problem sets: The role of philosophy and visual data communication in accessible data science education

Much guidance on statistical training in STEM fields has been focused largely on the undergraduate cohort, with graduate education often being absent from the equation. Training in quantitative methods and reasoning is critical for graduate students in biomedical and science programs to foster reproducible and responsible research practices. We argue that graduate student education should more center around fundamental reasoning and integration skills rather than mainly on listing 1 statistical test method after the other without conveying the bigger context picture or critical argumentation skills that will enable student to improve research integrity through rigorous practice. Herein, we describe the approach we take in a quantitative reasoning course in the R3 program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, with an error-focused lens, based on visualization and communication competencies. Specifically, we take this perspective stemming from the discussed causes of irreproducibility and apply it specifically to the many aspects of good statistical practice in science, ranging from experimental design to data collection and analysis, and conclusions drawn from the data. We also provide tips and guidelines for the implementation and adaptation of our course material to various graduate biomedical and STEM science programs.

Building awareness and capacity of bioinformatics and open science skills in Kenya: a sensitize, train, hack, and collaborate model

We have applied the sensitize-train-hack-community model to build awareness of and capacity in bioinformatics in Kenya. Open science is the practice of science openly and collaboratively, with tools, techniques, and data freely shared to facilitate reuse and collaboration. Open science is not a mandatory curriculum course in schools, whereas bioinformatics is relatively new in some African regions. Open science tools can significantly enhance bioinformatics, leading to increased reproducibility. However, open science and bioinformatics skills, especially blended, are still lacking among students and researchers in resource-constrained regions. We note the need to be aware of the power of open science among the bioinformatics community and a clear strategy to learn bioinformatics and open science skills for use in research. Using the OpenScienceKE framework-Sensitize, Train, Hack, Collaborate/Community-the BOSS (Bioinformatics and Open Science Skills) virtual events built awareness and empowered researchers with the skills and tools in open science and bioinformatics. Sensitization was achieved through a symposium, training through a workshop and train-the-trainer program, hack through mini-projects, community through conferences, and continuous meet-ups. In this paper, we discuss how we applied the framework during the BOSS events and highlight lessons learnt in planning and executing the events and their impact on the outcome of each phase. We evaluate the impact of the events through anonymous surveys. We show that sensitizing and empowering researchers with the skills works best when the participants apply the skills to real-world problems: project-based learning. Furthermore, we have demonstrated how to implement virtual events in resource-constrained settings by providing Internet and equipment support to participants, thus improving accessibility and diversity.

Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: ethical considerations

Genomics research holds the potential to improve healthcare. Yet, a very low percentage of the genomic data used in genomics research internationally relates to persons of African origin. Establishing a large-scale, open access genomics database of South Africans may contribute to solving this problem. However, this raises various ethics concerns, including privacy expectations and informed consent. The concept of open consent offers a potential solution to these concerns by (a) being explicit about the research participant's data being in the public domain and the associated privacy risks, and (b) setting a higher-than-usual benchmark for informed consent by making use of the objective assessment of prospective research participants' understanding. Furthermore, in the South African context-where local culture is infused with Ubuntu and its relational view of personhood-community engagement is vital for establishing and maintaining an open access genomics database of South Africans. The South African National Health Research Ethics Council is called upon to provide guidelines for genomics researchers-based on open consent and community engagement-on how to plan and implement open access genomics projects.

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study

Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.

Reproducibility in ecology and evolution: Minimum standards for data and code

We call for journals to commit to requiring open data be archived in a format that will be simple and clear for readers to understand and use. If applied consistently, these requirements will allow contributors to be acknowledged for their work through citation of open data, and facilitate scientific progress.

Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology

Starting in the 2010s, researchers in the experimental social sciences rapidly began to adopt increasingly open and reproducible scientific practices. These practices include publicly sharing deidentified data when possible, sharing analytical code, and preregistering study protocols. Empirical evidence from the social sciences suggests such practices are feasible, can improve analytical reproducibility, and can reduce selective reporting. In academic epidemiology, adoption of open-science practices has been slower than in the social sciences (with some notable exceptions, such as registering clinical trials). Epidemiologic studies are often large, complex, conceived after data have already been collected, and difficult to replicate directly by collecting new data. These characteristics make it especially important to ensure their integrity and analytical reproducibility. Open-science practices can also pay immediate dividends to researchers' own work by clarifying scientific reasoning and encouraging well-documented, organized workflows. We consider how established epidemiologists and early-career researchers alike can help midwife a culture of open science in epidemiology through their research practices, mentorship, and editorial activities.

Architecture of a Data Portal for Publishing and Delivering Open Data for Atmospheric Measurement

Atmospheric data are collected by researchers every day. Campaigns such as GOAmazon 2014/2015 and the Amazon Tall Tower Observatory collect essential data on aerosols, gases, cloud properties, and meteorological parameters in the Brazilian Amazon basin. These data products provide insights and essential information for analyzing and predicting natural processes. However, in Brazil, it is estimated that more than 80% of the scientific data collected are not published due to the lack of web portals that collect and store these data. This makes it difficult, or even impossible, to access and integrate the data, which can result in the loss of significant amounts of information and significantly affect the understanding of the overall data. To address this problem, we propose a data portal architecture and open data deployment that enable Big Data processing, human interaction, and download-oriented approaches with tools that help users catalog, publish and visualize atmospheric data. Thus, we describe the architecture developed, based on the experience of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Data Center, which incorporates the principles of FAIR, the infrastructure and content management system for managing scientific data. The portal partial results were tested with environmental data from contaminated areas at the University of São Paulo. Overall, this data portal creates more shared knowledge about atmospheric processes by providing users with access to open environmental data.

Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution

Scientific awards can shape scientific careers, helping to secure jobs and grants, but can also contribute to the lack of diversity at senior levels and in the elite networks of scientists. To assess the status quo and historical trends, we evaluated 'best researcher' awards and 'best paper' early- and mid-career awards from broad-scope international journals and societies in ecology and evolution. Specifically, we collated information on eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias. Our results reveal that, overall, few awards foster equitable access and assessment. Although many awards now explicitly allow extensions of the eligibility period for substantial career interruptions, there is a general lack of transparency in terms of assessment and consideration of other differences in access to opportunities and resources among junior researchers. Strikingly, open science practices were mentioned and valued in only one award. By highlighting instances of desirable award characteristics, we hope this work will nudge award committees to shift from simple but non-equitable award policies and practices towards strategies enhancing inclusivity and diversity. Such a shift would benefit not only those at the early- and mid-career stages but the whole research community. It is also an untapped opportunity to reward open science practices, promoting transparent and robust science.

Cost-Effectiveness of Venetoclax Plus Obinutuzumab Versus Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab for the First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: An Extended Societal View

OBJECTIVES

Efficacy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenO) compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (ClbO) for treatment-naïve adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with coexisting medical conditions was investigated in CLL14 (NCT02242942). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO versus ClbO for these patients from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and value of information analysis (VOI).

RESULTS

The base case resulted in a discounted ICER -49 928 EUR/QALY gained (with incremental negative costs and positive effects). None of the ICERs resulted from deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses exceeded the chosen willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 000 EUR/QALY, and > 99% of the iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were cost-effective. VOI analyses showed a maximum expected value of eliminating all model parameter uncertainty of 183 591 EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated VenO being dominant over ClbO in treatment-naïve adult patients with CLL assuming a Dutch societal perspective. We concluded that our results are robust as tested through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Additionally, the VOI analyses confirmed that our current evidence base is strong enough to generate reliable results for our study. Nevertheless, further research based on real-world data or longer follow-up period could further contribute to the robustness of the current study's conclusions.

Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design

Significance

The expansion of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) methodology and analysis tools gives rise to various design and analytical decisions that researchers have to make. Several recent efforts have developed guidelines for preprocessing, analyzing, and reporting practices. For the planning stage of fNIRS studies, similar guidance is desirable. Study preregistration helps researchers to transparently document study protocols before conducting the study, including materials, methods, and analyses, and thus, others to verify, understand, and reproduce a study. Preregistration can thus serve as a useful tool for transparent, careful, and comprehensive fNIRS study design.

Aim

We aim to create a guide on the design and analysis steps involved in fNIRS studies and to provide a preregistration template specified for fNIRS studies.

Approach

The presented preregistration guide has a strong focus on fNIRS specific requirements, and the associated template provides examples based on continuous-wave (CW) fNIRS studies conducted in humans. These can, however, be extended to other types of fNIRS studies.

Results

On a step-by-step basis, we walk the fNIRS user through key methodological and analysis-related aspects central to a comprehensive fNIRS study design. These include items specific to the design of CW, task-based fNIRS studies, but also sections that are of general importance, including an in-depth elaboration on sample size planning.

Conclusions

Our guide introduces these open science tools to the fNIRS community, providing researchers with an overview of key design aspects and specification recommendations for comprehensive study planning. As such it can be used as a template to preregister fNIRS studies or merely as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.

Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research

BACKGROUND

Preregistration, the open science practice of specifying and registering details of a planned study prior to knowing the data, increases the transparency and reproducibility of research. Large-scale replication attempts for psychological results yielded shockingly low success rates and contributed to an increasing demand for open science practices among psychologists. However, preregistering one's studies is still not the norm in the field. Here, we conducted a study to explore possible reasons for this discrepancy.

METHODS

In a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an online survey assessing attitudes, motivations, and perceived obstacles with respect to preregistration. Respondents (N = 289) were psychological researchers that were recruited through their publications on Web of Science, PubMed, PSYNDEX, and PsycInfo, and preregistrations on OSF Registries. Based on the theory of planned behavior, we predicted that positive attitudes (moderated by the perceived importance of preregistration) as well as a favorable subjective norm and higher perceived behavioral control positively influence researchers' intention to preregister (directional hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expected an influence of research experience on attitudes and perceived motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration (non-directional hypothesis 2). We analyzed these hypotheses with multiple regression models and included preregistration experience as a control variable.

RESULTS

Researchers' attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and the perceived importance of preregistration significantly predicted researchers' intention to use preregistration in the future (see hypothesis 1). Research experience influenced both researchers' attitudes and their perception of motivations to preregister, but not the perception of obstacles (see hypothesis 2). Descriptive reports on researchers' attitudes, motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration are provided.

DISCUSSION

Many researchers had already preregistered and had a rather positive attitude toward preregistration. Nevertheless, several obstacles were identified that may be addressed to improve and foster preregistration.