Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109933›Full record

ReviewRoyal Society open science2025

International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of open research in psychology: a systematic mapping review.

Magda Skubera, Max Korbmacher, Thomas Rhys Evans, Flavio Azevedo, Charlotte R Pennington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Magda SkuberaSchool of Psychology, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0301-1368
Max KorbmacherMohn Medical Imaging and Visualisation Centre, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8113-2560
Thomas Rhys EvansSchool of Human Sciences and Institute for Lifecourse Developments, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-0718
Flavio AzevedoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-8513
Charlotte R PenningtonSchool of Psychology, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5259-642X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about the replicability, reproducibility and transparency of research have ushered in a set of practices and behaviours under the umbrella of 'open research'. To this end, many new initiatives have been developed that represent procedural (i.e. behaviours and sets of commonly used practices in the research process), structural (new norms, rules, infrastructure and incentives), and community-based change (working groups, networks). The objectives of this research were to identify and outline international initiatives that enhance awareness and uptake of open research practices in the discipline of psychology. A systematic mapping review was conducted in three stages: (i) a Web search to identify open research initiatives in psychology; (ii) a literature search to identify related articles; and (iii) a hand search of grey literature. Eligible initiatives were then coded into an overarching theme of procedural, structural or community-based change. A total of 187 initiatives were identified; 30 were procedural (e.g. toolkits, resources, software), 70 structural (e.g. policies, strategies, frameworks) and 87 community-based (e.g. working groups, networks). This review highlights that open research is progressing at pace through various initiatives that share a common goal to reform research culture. We hope that this review promotes their further adoption and facilitates coordinated efforts between individuals, organizations, institutions, publishers and funders.

Indexed as

initiativesopen researchopen scienceresearch reformsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40109933
PMCPMC11919529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.