ArticleCanadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale2025
Open science: My insights into data sharing, preregistration, and replication.
Article in Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
After a decade of implementing open science practices as a principal investigator, mentor, data repository founder, and editor-in-chief, I have learned that the question is not whether researchers should adopt these practices but how to adapt them meaningfully. This commentary, based on a talk given at the 2024 Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science conference, argues for two key principles: First, open science implementation must be context-dependent rather than one-size-fits-all, and second, practical research realities require flexible approaches to idealized policies. Through personal examples, from my evolution with preregistration from "recipe" to "guide" during COVID-19 research to challenges with Registered Reports using existing data sets, I show how open science practices work best when researchers approach them as evolving tools rather than rigid rules. I also discuss field-specific differences in open science uptake between psychology and education and the importance of equity considerations in implementation. The commentary concludes with concrete recommendations for researchers and journals, emphasizing that sustainable open science requires meeting researchers where they are while maintaining transparency and scientific rigour. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.