Transparency and Open Science at the Journal of Personality - Wright - - Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library

peter.suber's bookmarks 2021-03-03

Summary:

"Changes are afoot in the way the scientific community is approaching the practice and reporting of research. Spurred by concerns about the fundamental reliability (i.e., replicability), or rather lack thereof, of contemporary psychological science (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015), as well as how we go about our business (e.g., Gelman & Loken, 2014), several recommendations have been furthered for increasing the rigor of the published research through openness and transparency. The Journal has long prized and published the type of research with features, like large sample sizes (Fraley & Vazire, 2014), that has fared well by replicability standards (Soto, 2019). The type of work traditionally published here, often relying on longitudinal samples, large public datasets (e.g., Midlife in the United States Study), or complex data collection designs (e.g., ambulatory assessment and behavioral coding) did not seem to fit neatly into the template of the emerging transparency practices. However, as thinking in the open science movement has progressed and matured, we have decided to full‐throatedly endorse these practices and join the growing chorus of voices that are encouraging and rewarding more transparent work in psychological science. We believe this can be achieved while maintaining the “big tent” spirit of personality research at the Journal with a broad scope in content, methods, and analytical tools that has made it so special and successful all of these years. Moving forward, we will be rigorously implementing a number of procedures for openness and transparency consistent with the Transparency and Open Science Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.

The TOP Guidelines are organized into eight standards, each of which can be implemented at three levels of stringency (Nosek et al., 2015). In what follows, we outline the initial TOP Standards Levels adopted by the Journal and the associated rationale. Generally, we have adopted Level 2 standards, as we believe these strike a desirable balance between compelling a high degree of openness and transparency while not being overly onerous and a deterrent for authors interested in the Journal as an outlet for their work...."

Link:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12626

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.new oa.open_science oa.psychology oa.ssh oa.transparency oa.case oa.case.journals oa.top oa.data oa.policies oa.policies.journals oa.policies.journals.data oa.badges oa.incentives

Date tagged:

03/03/2021, 11:48

Date published:

03/03/2021, 06:49