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

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY British journal of psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1111/bjop.12700
Priya Silverstein, Charlotte R. Pennington, Peter Branney, Daryl B. O'Connor, Emma Lawlor, Emer O'Brien, Dermot Lynott
{"title":"A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland","authors":"Priya Silverstein,&nbsp;Charlotte R. Pennington,&nbsp;Peter Branney,&nbsp;Daryl B. O'Connor,&nbsp;Emma Lawlor,&nbsp;Emer O'Brien,&nbsp;Dermot Lynott","doi":"10.1111/bjop.12700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":"115 3","pages":"497-534"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjop.12700","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12700","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国和爱尔兰心理学系开放式研究实践登记报告调查。
开放式研究实践旨在提高研究的透明度和可复制性。虽然有证据表明,在新的基础设施和政策的推动下,研究预注册和开放数据等实践的采用率有所提高,但很少有研究对心理学大学研究人员普遍采用此类实践的情况进行评估。本研究估算了英国和爱尔兰各所大学的心理学研究人员对开放式研究实践的参与程度,同时还评估了可能影响其参与程度的解释性因素。我们收集了英国和爱尔兰 602 名心理学研究人员的数据,了解他们在多大程度上实施了各种实践(如使用预印本、预注册、开放数据、开放材料)。在此,我们对描述性结果进行了总结,同时考虑了各类研究人员(如职业阶段、子学科、方法论)之间的差异,并研究了研究人员的实践与其参与开放式研究实践的自我报告能力、机会和动机(COM-B)之间的关系。结果表明,虽然参与开放式研究实践的差异很大,但相比之下,不同职业阶段和心理学分支学科之间的差异很小。我们观察到,受访者的研究方法和机构是否支持开放式研究之间存在一致的差异。COM-B维度是参与开放式研究的重要预测因素,其中自动动机一直是一个强有力的预测因素。我们将讨论这些发现,概述本研究中遇到的一些挑战,并为今后的研究提出意见和建议。估算负责任研究实践的普遍程度对于评估研究改革中的持续行为变化、定制教育培训计划以及了解可能影响参与度的潜在因素非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
期刊最新文献
Bridging minds and machines: Unmasking the limits in text-based automatic personality recognition for enhanced psychology-AI synergy. Face and voice identity matching accuracy is not improved by multimodal identity information. The token undermining effect: When and why adding a small reward to a dated outcome makes it less preferred. Mapping the maze: A network analysis of social-emotional skills among children and adolescents with social-emotional difficulties. Sounds of the future and past.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1