Abstract
Evidence of low replicability, poor reproducibility, and questionable research practices has prompted a broad effort toward transparency and openness in science, termed the open science movement. We examined articles published in HFES’s flagship journal, Human Factors, to gauge the prevalence of open science practices. Empirical articles published in the journal between the years 2017 and 2022 were assessed for evidence of study preregistration, materials sharing, data sharing, and analytic code sharing. The majority of articles made no mention of any open science practices. The most common practices adopted were data and code sharing, though these were reported in no more than 17% of the articles in any year. Journal policies may be worthwhile to better incentivize openness and transparency.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
