The use of Open Science practices is often proposed as a way to improve research practice, especially in psychology. Open Science can increase transparency and therefore reduce questionable research practices, making research more accessible to students, scholars, policy makers, and the public. However, little is known about how widespread Open Science practices are taught and how students are educated about these practices. In addition, it remains unknown how informing students about Open Science actually impacts their understanding and adoption of such practices. This registered report proposes the validation of a questionnaire. The aim is to survey how much psychology students know about Open Science and to assess whether knowledge of and exposure to Open Science in general-be it through university curricula or social media-influences attitudes towards the concept and intentions to implement relevant practices.

3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Czech Republic

Centre for Business Research Judge Business School University of Cambridge United Kingdom

Division of Psychology and Mental Health Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health University of Manchester Manchester United Kingdom

Facultad de Salud Universidad Camilo José Cela Madrid Spain

Junior Researcher Programme Cambridge United Kingdom

Methods and Evaluation Quality Assurance Freie Universität Berlin Berlin Germany

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom

National Institute of Mental Health Klecany Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Crüwell S, van Doorn J, Etz A, Makel M, Moshontz H, Niebaum J et al. Seven Easy Steps to Open Science. Z Psychol. 2019;227(4):237–248.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Making Open Science a Reality. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. 2015.

Open Science Policy Platform Recommendations [Internet]. European Commission. 2018 [cited 3 July 2021]. https://tinyurl.com/ycbspm4r

Tennant J, Bielczyk N, Tzovaras B, Masuzzo P, Steiner T. Introducing Massively Open Online Papers (MOOPs). KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies. 2020;4:1.

Tennant J, Crick T. What can scholars learn from Open Source software communities during pandemics. SocArXiv; 2020. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/5kdbx DOI

Taxonomy [Internet]. [cited 3 July 2021]. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy

Longo D, Drazen J. Data Sharing. New Engl J Med. 2016;374(3):276–277. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1516564 PubMed DOI

Lakens D. The Value of Preregistration for Psychological Science: A Conceptual Analysis. PsyArXiv; 2019. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/jbh4w DOI

Blincoe S, Buchert S. Research Preregistration as a Teaching and Learning Tool in Undergraduate Psychology Courses. Psychol Learn Teach. 2019;19(1):107–115.

Chopik W, Bremner R, Defever A, Keller V. How (and Whether) to Teach Undergraduates About the Replication Crisis in Psychological Science. Teach Psychol. 2018;45(2):158–163.

FORRT. Introducing a Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT). 2019.

Kathawalla U-K, Silverstein P, Syed M. Easing Into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors. PsyArXiv; 2020. doi: 10.1525/collabra.18684 DOI

Munafò M, Nosek B, Bishop D, Button K, Chambers C, Percie du Sert N et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1). doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 PubMed DOI PMC

Nelson L, Simmons J, Simonsohn U. Psychology’s Renaissance. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018;69(1):511–534. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836 PubMed DOI

Winerman L. Trend report: Psychologists embrace open science [Internet]. https://www.apa.org. 2017 [cited 3 July 2021]. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/11/trends-open-science.aspx

Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, Kekecs Z, Kucharský Š, Benjamin D et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(1):4–6. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6 PubMed DOI PMC

Spellman B. A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(6):886–899. doi: 10.1177/1745691615609918 PubMed DOI

Christensen G, Wang Z, Paluck EL, Swanson N, Birke DJ, Miguel E, et al. Open Science Practices are on the Rise: The State of Social Science (3S) Survey. MetaArXiv; 2019. doi: 10.31222/osf.io/5rksu DOI

Nosek B. The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, A Preliminary Report [Internet]. Cos.io. 2019 [cited 3 July 2021]. https://cos.io/blog/rise-open-science-psychology-preliminary-report/

Spellman B, Gilbert EA, Corker KS. Open Science: What, Why, and How [Internet]. OSF; 20 Sep 2017. osf.io/8u3qe

Funder D, Levine J, Mackie D, Morf C, Sansone C, Vazire S et al. Improving the Dependability of Research in Personality and Social Psychology. Pers Soc Psychol Review. 2013;18(1):3–12. doi: 10.1177/1088868313507536 PubMed DOI

European Comission. Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practise Open Science [Internet]. Luxemburg: European Comission; 2017. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3b4e1847-c9ca-11e7-8e69-01aa75ed71a1

Fischer L, Hilton J, Robinson T, Wiley D. A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. J Comput High Education. 2015;27(3):159–172. doi: 10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x PubMed DOI PMC

European University Association. Public Funding Observatory Report [Internet]. 2017. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua-pfo-report-december-2017.pdf

Olejniczak A, Wilson M. Who’s writing open access (OA) articles? Characteristics of OA authors at Ph.D.-granting institutions in the United States. Quant sci stud. 2020;1(4):1429–1450.

Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U. False-Positive Psychology. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359–1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632 PubMed DOI

Orion Open Science. Questionnaire for self-assessment on Open Science. [Internet]. Orion Open Science; 2019 [cited 3 July 2021]. https://www.orion-openscience.eu/public/2019-01/ORION_Questionaire_RPFO-CRECIM.pdf

Flora D. Your Coefficient Alpha Is Probably Wrong, but Which Coefficient Omega Is Right? A Tutorial on Using R to Obtain Better Reliability Estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2020;3(4):484–501.

Garcia-Garzon E, Abad F, Garrido L. On D26Omega Hierarchical Estimation: A Comparison of Exploratory Bi-Factor Analysis Algorithms. Multivar Behav Research. 2020;56(1):101–119. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2020.1736977 PubMed DOI

Bartholomew D, Deary I, Lawn M. The origin of factor scores: Spearman, Thomson and Bartlett. Brit J Math Stat Psy. 2009;62(3):569–582. doi: 10.1348/000711008X365676 PubMed DOI

Rodriguez A, Reise S, Haviland M. Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(2):137–150. doi: 10.1037/met0000045 PubMed DOI

Wang Y, Rhemtulla M. Power Analysis for Parameter Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling: A Discussion and Tutorial. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2021;4(1):251524592091825.

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes