Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42813084›Full record

ArticleClinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2026

Building Open Science into Graduate Training in Clinical Psychology.

Jeffrey M Girard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jeffrey M GirardDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas.ORCID 0000-0002-7359-3746

Funding

Women's Alzheimer's Risk Reduction in MidlifeP20GM152280 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI HEATHER R DESAIRE · 2024 to 2026
$10.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM152280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open science promises greater transparency and rigor, yet clinical psychology has lagged in integrating it into graduate training. This commentary builds on recent evidence that open-science instruction in U.S. programs remains uneven and largely conceptual. I argue that progress requires more than awareness: it depends on pedagogical scaffolding, computational infrastructure, and cultural alignment. Embedding reproducible, code-based workflows, literate programming, and ethical transparency throughout training can make openness both feasible and normative. By treating transparency as a professional competency, supported by open educational resources and institutional incentives, clinical psychology can model how to cultivate a sustainable culture of open science.

Indexed as

commentarygraduate trainingopen scienceresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID42813084
PMCPMC13621908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.