Study Preregistration Research Articles

Investigating visuo-tactile mirror properties in borderline personality disorder: A TMS-EEG study

ObjectivesPatients with borderline personality disorder (pw-BPD) have decreased levels of cognitive empathy, which may be subtended by mirror-like mechanisms in the somatosensory cortices, i.e., the Tactile Mirror System (TaMS). Here, we aimed to shed light on the TaMS and empathic deficits in pw-BPD focusing on connectivity, using transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG). MethodsAfter study preregistration, we collected self-report measures of empathic abilities, behavioral performance in a visuo-tactile spatial congruency task investigating TaMS activity, and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) from 20 pw-BPD and 20 healthy controls. TMS was delivered over the right primary somatosensory cortex (S1) during touch observation and real touch delivery. ResultsPw-BPD reported significantly lower levels of cognitive empathy than controls and made significantly more errors in reporting the side of real touches during touch observation. Moreover, pw-BPD presented an altered connectivity pattern from S1-TEPs during touch perception and touch observation, in the last case without differences between human- and object-directed touches. ConclusionsThe results do not support a specific impairment of TaMS in pw-BPD, but reveal significant behavioral and connectivity alterations within the somatosensory network during touch processing. SignificanceThe present findings temper the proposed role of the TaMS in BPD, while still highlighting the involvement of somatosensory network alterations.

Registering Theory-Based Predictions in Political Science

ABSTRACT How can political scientists rigorously evaluate the predictive power of theories? Many peer-reviewed political science articles include predictions about future outcomes, and scholars make predictions on social media and other public forums. The prevalence of predictions suggests that scholars recognize the utility of leveraging theories for this purpose; however, the predictions often are not made in a manner that allows for rigorously evaluating their accuracy. Building on the increasing popularity of study preregistration in the social sciences, this article proposes “prediction registration” as a means for scholars to publish falsifiable, systematic, and verifiable theory-based predictions. Increasing the rigor of predictive theory testing can advance often-circular debates about accuracy and presents a “win-win” for scholars who aim to test the predictive power of theories. With a more rigorous approach, correct predictions would better demonstrate a theory’s ability to forecast outcomes, and missed predictions would reveal information that can be used to calibrate the theory.

The potential of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency.

Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its potential to restrict researcher degrees of freedom has not yet been empirically verified. We used an extensive protocol to assess the producibility (i.e., the degree to which a study can be properly conducted based on the available information) of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistrations and their corresponding papers for 300 psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. These results highlight that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom remain possible in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded more producible preregistrations. We did not find that the producibility and consistency of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally preregistered more producible and consistently than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write more producible preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from their preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring internalized health-related stigma across health conditions: development and validation of the I-HEARTS Scale.

Health-related stigma and its internalization among individuals with chronic health conditions contribute to impaired mental and physical health and quality of life. Research on health-related stigma has been siloed, with disease-specific measures that may not capture the experiences of individuals with multiple health conditions and that prevent comparisons across health conditions. The current study aimed to develop and test a transdiagnostic measure of internalized health-related stigma for use among adults with different physical health conditions. An existing measure of internalized mental health stigma was adapted to assess stigma due to chronic physical health conditions following COSMIN procedures, with input from advisory boards of community members living with a range of stigmatized health conditions (obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, skin diseases, HIV, chronic pain, and cancers) and of health professionals who specialized in these conditions. The new Internalized Health-Related Stigma (I-HEARTS) Scale was tested in an online sample of 300 adults with these health conditions, recruited from ResearchMatch. Additional psychosocial measures of mental health and quality of life were administered, and participants provided information about their health conditions and demographic characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis and tests of reliability and validity were conducted to determine the psychometric properties of the I-HEARTS Scale, and k-means clustering and receiver of characteristic curve analysis were used to determine a clinically meaningful cutoff score indicating high levels of internalized stigma. Factor analysis results yielded a 25-item scale with a 3-factor solution, with subscales of Perceived and Anticipated Stigma, Stereotype Application and Self-Devaluation, and Stigma Resistance. Psychometric properties for internal consistency, inter-item and item-total correlations, and test-retest reliability were strong. Certain demographics (e.g., younger age) and characteristics related to health conditions (e.g., greater symptom severity) were associated with higher levels of internalized stigma. I-HEARTS Scale scores correlated moderately to strongly with related but distinct psychosocial measures, and a cutoff score of 3.40 or higher on the 1-7 rating scale was determined to indicate clinically meaningful levels of internalized stigma. The I-HEARTS Scale is a reliable and valid measure for the assessment of internalized health-related stigma among adults with varied stigmatized chronic health conditions. STUDY PRE-REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/84c5d/?view_only=87238512f6d6475c87f8f64280a8a15f .

Preregistration specificity and adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies and cross-disciplinary comparison

Study preregistration is one of several “open science” practices (e.g., open data, preprints) that researchers use to improve the transparency and rigour of their research. As more researchers adopt preregistration as a regular practice, examining the nature and content of preregistrations can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of current practices. The value of preregistration, in part, relates to the specificity of the study plan and the extent to which investigators adhere to this plan. We identified 53 preregistrations from the gambling studies field meeting our predefined eligibility criteria and scored their level of specificity using a 23-item protocol developed to measure the extent to which a clear and exhaustive preregistration plan restricts various researcher degrees of freedom (RDoF; i.e., the many methodological choices available to researchers when collecting and analysing data, and when reporting their findings). We also scored studies on a 32-item protocol that measured adherence to the preregistered plan in the study manuscript. We found gambling preregistrations had low specificity levels on most RDoF. However, a comparison with a sample of cross-disciplinary preregistrations (N = 52; Bakker et al., 2020) indicated that gambling preregistrations scored higher on 12 (of 29) items. Thirteen (65%) of the 20 associated published articles or preprints deviated from the protocol without declaring as much (the mean number of undeclared deviations per article was 2.25, SD = 2.34). Overall, while we found improvements in specificity and adherence over time (2017-2020), our findings suggest the purported benefits of preregistration—including increasing transparency and reducing RDoF—are not fully achieved by current practices. Using our findings, we provide 10 practical recommendations that can be used to support and refine preregistration practices.

Planned but ever published? A retrospective analysis of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000

ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics and publication outcomes of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000. Study Design and SettingObservational studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2000, and March 2, 2022, describing the development of a new clinical prediction model or the validation of an existing model for predicting individual-level prognostic or diagnostic risk were analyzed. Eligible clinicaltrials.gov records were classified by modeling study type (development, validation) and the model outcome being predicted (prognostic, diagnostic). Recorded characteristics included study status, sample size information, Medical Subject Headings, and plans to share individual participant data. Publication outcomes were analyzed by linking National Clinical Trial numbers for eligible records with PubMed abstracts. ResultsNine hundred twenty-eight records were analyzed from a possible 89,896 observational study records. Publications searches found 170 matching peer-reviewed publications for 137 clinicaltrials.gov records. The estimated proportion of records with 1 or more matching publications after accounting for time since study start was 2.8% at 2 years (95% CI: 1.7%, 3.9%), 12.3% at 5 years (9.8% to 14.9%) and 27% at 10 years (23% to 33%). Stratifying records by study start year indicated that publication proportions improved over time. Records tended to prioritize the development of new prediction models over the validation of existing models (76%; 704/928 vs. 24%; 182/928). At the time of download, 27% of records were marked as complete, 35% were still recruiting, and 14.7% had unknown status. Only 7.4% of records stated plans to share individual participant data. ConclusionPublished clinical prediction model studies are only a fraction of overall research efforts, with many studies planned but not completed or published. Improving the uptake of study preregistration and follow-up will increase the visibility of planned research. Introducing additional registry features and guidance may improve the identification of clinical prediction model studies posted to clinical registries.

The promotion and implementation of open science measures among high‐performing journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain

AbstractThis study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high‐performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. Four hundred articles were coded for the inclusion of data availability statements, conflict of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, DOI, ORCID, and continuous publishing. Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review. These findings reveal reasonably strong implementation of secondary open science measures (e.g., DOI, ORCID, conflict of interest and funding source disclosure) among the sample, but weaker implementation of primary measures (e.g., open data, open materials, replication studies and open peer review). The implications of these findings are considered and suggestions are made to bolster the adoption of open science measures among Ibero‐American scientific journals.

Individual differences in visual search: A systematic review of the link between visual search performance and traits or abilities

Visual search (VS) comprises a class of tasks that we typically perform several times during a day and requires intentionally scanning (with or without moving the eyes) the environment for a specific target (be it an object or a feature) among distractor stimuli. Experimental research in lab-based or real-world settings has offered insight into its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms from a nomothetic point of view. A lesser-known but rapidly growing body of quasi-experimental and correlational research has explored the link between individual differences and VS performance. This combines different research traditions and covers a wide range of individual differences in studies deploying a vast array of VS tasks. As such, it is a challenge to determine whether any associations highlighted in single studies are robust when considering the wider literature. However, clarifying such relationships systematically and comprehensively would help build more accurate models of VS, and it would highlight promising directions for future research. This systematic review provides an up to date and comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature investigating associations between common indices of performance in VS tasks and measures of individual differences mapped onto four categories of cognitive abilities (short-term working memory, fluid reasoning, visual processing and processing speed) and seven categories of traits (Big Five traits, trait anxiety and autistic traits). Consistent associations for both traits (in particular, conscientiousness, autistic traits and trait anxiety – the latter limited to emotional stimuli) and cognitive abilities (particularly visual processing) were identified. Overall, however, informativeness of future studies would benefit from checking and reporting the reliability of all measurement tools, applying multiplicity correction, using complementary techniques, study preregistration and testing why, rather than only if, a robust relation between certain individual differences and VS performance exists.

A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland.

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM-B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.

Argument‐Based Approach to Validity: Developing a Living Document and Incorporating Preregistration

AbstractI propose two practical advances to the argument‐based approach to validity: developing a living document and incorporating preregistration. First, I present a potential structure for the living document that includes an up‐to‐date summary of the validity argument. As the validation process may span across multiple studies, the living document allows future users of the instrument to access the entire validity argument in one place. Second, I describe how preregistration can be incorporated in the argument‐based approach. Specifically, I distinguish between two types of preregistration: preregistration of the argument and preregistration of validation studies. Preregistration of the argument is a single preregistration that is specified for the entire validation process. Here, the developer specifies interpretations, uses, and claims before collecting validity evidence. Preregistration of a validation study refers to preregistering a single validation study that aims to evaluate a set of claims. Here, the developer describes study components (e.g., research design, data collection, data analysis, etc.), before collecting data. Both preregistration types have the potential to reduce the risk of bias (e.g., hindsight and confirmation biases), as well as to allow others to evaluate the risk of bias and, hence, calibrate confidence, in the developer's evaluation of the validity argument.

Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapist Journals.

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

Evaluating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Study Preregistration in the Undergraduate Dissertation

Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is “study preregistration,” through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method, and analysis plans before data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation ( n = 52; experimental group) and students who did not ( n = 37; control group). Attitudes toward statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both before and after dissertation completion. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: September 21, 2021). Study preregistration did not significantly affect attitudes toward statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organization of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigor. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to discussions surrounding embedding Open Science principles into research training.

Open Science Practices in The Journal Human Factors: 2017–2022

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.

FAIR environmental and health registry (FAIREHR)- supporting the science to policy interface and life science research, development and innovation.

The environmental impact on health is an inevitable by-product of human activity. Environmental health sciences is a multidisciplinary field addressing complex issues on how people are exposed to hazardous chemicals that can potentially affect adversely the health of present and future generations. Exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology are becoming increasingly data-driven and their efficiency and effectiveness can significantly improve by implementing the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles for scientific data management and stewardship. This will enable data integration, interoperability and (re)use while also facilitating the use of new and powerful analytical tools such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in the benefit of public health policy, and research, development and innovation (RDI). Early research planning is critical to ensuring data is FAIR at the outset. This entails a well-informed and planned strategy concerning the identification of appropriate data and metadata to be gathered, along with established procedures for their collection, documentation, and management. Furthermore, suitable approaches must be implemented to evaluate and ensure the quality of the data. Therefore, the 'Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science' (ISES Europe) human biomonitoring working group (ISES Europe HBM WG) proposes the development of a FAIR Environment and health registry (FAIREHR) (hereafter FAIREHR). FAIR Environment and health registry offers preregistration of studies on exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology using HBM (as a starting point) across all areas of environmental and occupational health globally. The registry is proposed to receive a dedicated web-based interface, to be electronically searchable and to be available to all relevant data providers, users and stakeholders. Planned Human biomonitoring studies would ideally be registered before formal recruitment of study participants. The resulting FAIREHR would contain public records of metadata such as study design, data management, an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the study will be completed, and links to resulting publications and data repositories when provided by the authors. The FAIREHR would function as an integrated platform designed to cater to the needs of scientists, companies, publishers, and policymakers by providing user-friendly features. The implementation of FAIREHR is expected to yield significant benefits in terms of enabling more effective utilization of human biomonitoring (HBM) data.

Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.

In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers being unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first highlight the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experimental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field.

Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Quality Indicators of Secondary Data Analyses in Special Education Research: A Preregistration Guide

Secondary data analyses occur when new analyses are proposed for existing data. Although they are prevalent in special education research, there is little guidance on how to prepare secondary data analyses studies. Preregistration of secondary data analyses studies provides a nice opportunity and structure for fellow researchers to share innovative questions and analytic approaches to existing data sets as well as increase transparency. In this manuscript, we (a) describe quality indicators of secondary data analyses consistent with open science practices and (b) provide applied examples of these indicators from a sampling of published studies based on two iterations of data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2 and NLTS2012) with the overall goals to provide guidance to authors and peer reviewers and promote collaboration among fellow researchers engaged in secondary analyses for a range of purposes.

Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines across Journals

Journal policies continuously evolve to enable knowledge sharing and support reproducible science. However, that change happens within a certain framework. Eight modular standards with three levels of increasing stringency make Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines which can be used to evaluate to what extent and with which stringency journals promote open science. Guidelines define standards for data citation, transparency of data, material, code and design and analysis, replication, plan and study pre-registration, and two effective interventions: “Registered reports” and “Open science badges”, and levels of adoption summed up across standards define journal’s TOP Factor. In this paper, we analysed the status of adoption of TOP guidelines across two thousand journals reported in the TOP Factor metrics. We show that the majority of the journals’ policies align with at least one of the TOP’s standards, most likely “Data citation” (70%) followed by “Data transparency” (19%). Two-thirds of adoptions of TOP standard are of the stringency Level 1 (less stringent), whereas only 9% is of the stringency Level 3. Adoption of TOP standards differs across science disciplines and multidisciplinary journals (N = 1505) and journals from social sciences (N = 1077) show the greatest number of adoptions. Improvement of the measures that journals take to implement open science practices could be done: (1) discipline-specific, (2) journals that have not yet adopted TOP guidelines could do so, (3) the stringency of adoptions could be increased.

Times are changing, bias isn't: A meta-meta-analysis on publication bias detection practices, prevalence rates, and predictors in industrial/organizational psychology.

Effect misestimations plague Psychological Science, but advances in the identification of dissemination biases in general and publication bias in particular have helped in dealing with biased effects in the literature. However, the application of publication bias detection methods appears to be not equally prevalent across subdisciplines. It has been suggested that particularly in I/O Psychology, appropriate publication bias detection methods are underused. In this meta-meta-analysis, we present prevalence estimates, predictors, and time trends of publication bias in 128 meta-analyses that were published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (7,263 effect sizes, 3,000,000 + participants). Moreover, we reanalyzed data of 87 meta-analyses and applied nine standard and more modern publication bias detection methods. We show that (a) the bias detection method applications are underused (only 41% of meta-analyses use at least one method) but have increased in recent years, (b) those meta-analyses that apply such methods now use more, but mostly inappropriate methods, and (c) the prevalence of potential publication bias is concerning but mostly remains undetected. Although our results indicate somewhat of a trend toward higher bias awareness, they substantiate concerns about potential publication bias in I/O Psychology, warranting increased researcher awareness about appropriate and state-of-the-art bias detection and triangulation. Embracing open science practices such as data sharing or study preregistration is needed to raise reproducibility and ultimately strengthen Psychological Science in general and I/O Psychology in particular. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines across journals

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines include eight modular standards, with three tiers of increasing stringency, which journals can adopt to promote open science (Nosek et al. 2015). Standards evaluate journal policies on data citation, data transparency, material transparency, code transparency, design and analysis, study preregistration, analysis preregistration, and replication.To get an idea about whether TOP guidelines are being adopted by journals, we analysed the policies of 1,219 journals available on the website of the Center for Open Science. Journals were categorized by the three stringency tiers of eight TOP standards - were analyzed. 68% of the journals have their policies aligned to at least one of the TOP standards, nearly 46% have their policies aligned to data citation standards, and only 10% have a policy for pre-registration of analysis plans or study preregistration. If a journal policy adopts TOP guidelines, it is most likely of the stringency Level 1 (less stringent) across all eight standards (median=70%). However, policies for the “Analysis code transparency” standard are more “stringent” compared to other standards, and half of the journals require Level 2 and 3 stringency, e.g. storage in an open repository and/or code reproducibility. In the future, we are planning to complement these preliminary results with information about the journal policy requirements stratified across different scientific disciplines and to add a component of time – the evolution of requirements from publishers for adoption of open science practices.Our results already suggest two ways to improve implementation of open science practices:1) adoption of policies that promote open science for journals that still have not adopted them, and2) increasing the stringency of requirements for open science practices for journals that have.