ArticleNature communications2023
Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Practice to Policy: Promise and Constraints of Contemplative Ethics Interventions in Science.Mindfulness · 2026Article
- Exploring open science in applied ethology: practice and attitudes among researchers.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Enhancing translational research in metastatic cancer through an open science environment: the UPTIDER experience.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Nurses' attitudes towards communication with patients: a hybrid concept analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The struggle to make transparency mainstream: initial evidence for a slow uptake of open science practices in PhD theses.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Ten principles for reliable, efficient, and adaptable coding in psychology and cognitive neuroscience.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.BMC biology · 2025Review
- Heterogeneity in effect size estimates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science practices such as posting data or code and pre-registering analyses are increasingly prescribed and debated in the applied sciences, but the actual popularity and lifetime usage of these practices remain unknown. This study provides an assessment of attitudes toward, use of, and perceived norms regarding open science practices from a sample of authors published in top-10 (most-cited) journals and PhD students in top-20 ranked North American departments from four major social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. We observe largely favorable private attitudes toward widespread lifetime usage (meaning that a researcher has used a particular practice at least once) of open science practices. As of 2020, nearly 90% of scholars had ever used at least one such practice. Support for posting data or code online is higher (88% overall support and nearly at the ceiling in some fields) than support for pre-registration (58% overall). With respect to norms, there is evidence that the scholars in our sample appear to underestimate the use of open science practices in their field. We also document that the reported lifetime prevalence of open science practices increased from 49% in 2010 to 87% a decade later.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.