Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research Summary We used interviews with elite informants as a case study to illustrate the need to expand the discussion of transparency and replicability to qualitative methodology. An analysis of 52 articles published in Strategic Management Journal revealed that none of them were sufficiently transparent to allow for exact replication, empirical replication, or conceptual replication. We offer 12 transparency criteria, and behaviorally‐anchored ratings scales to measure them, that can be used by authors as they plan and conduct qualitative research as well as by journal reviewers and editors when they evaluate the transparency of submitted manuscripts. We hope our article will serve as a catalyst for improving the degree of transparency and replicability of future qualitative research. Managerial Summary If organizations implement practices based on published research, will they produce results consistent with those reported in the articles? To answer this question, it is critical that published articles be transparent in terms of what has been done, why, and how. We investigated 52 articles published in Strategic Management Journal that reported interviewing elite informants (e.g., members of the top management team) and found that none of the articles were sufficiently transparent. These results lead to thorny questions about the trustworthiness of published research, but also important opportunities for future improvements about research transparency and replicability. We offer recommendations on 12 transparency criteria, and how to measure them, that can be used to evaluate past as well as future research using qualitative methods.

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to April 2021. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 279 living publications relating to 76 LSRs. Of the 279 publications, 11% were protocols, 23% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 50% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 16% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%); all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

This study examines the attitudes and frequency of engagement with open science practices (OSPs) like data sharing among early-career (ECRs) and senior psychology researchers (non-ECRs) in North America. Given the growing emphasis on transparency and reproducibility in scientific research, understanding how these practices are perceived and implemented at different career stages is crucial for improving research quality. We analyzed survey data from 290 psychology researchers in Canada and the United States, looking at their attitudes towards OSPs and how often they engaged in such practices. Results show a gap between positive attitudes towards OSPs and their actual implementation. Content analysis of open-ended responses identified several barriers and incentives to OSPs. Despite widespread agreement on the value of transparency and collaboration, barriers such as career pressures, lack of training, fear of scrutiny, peer resistance, and long-established norms prevent many researchers—but especially ECRs—from fully embracing these practices. This gap between perception and practice highlights the need for changes in academic incentives and infrastructure to better support transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration. We conclude with recommendations to increase engagement in best practices and improve the credibility and transparency of psychological research. Data, study materials, and supplementary resources can be found at https://osf.io/5mn2x/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

While the social sciences have made impressive progress in adopting transparent research practices that facilitate verification, replication, and reuse of materials, the problem of publication bias persists. Bias on the part of peer reviewers and journal editors, as well as the use of outdated research practices by authors, continues to skew literature toward statistically significant effects, many of which may be false positives. To mitigate this bias, we propose a framework to enable authors to report all results efficiently (RARE), with an initial focus on experimental and other prospective empirical social science research that utilizes public study registries. This framework depicts an integrated system that leverages the capacities of existing infrastructure in the form of public registries, institutional review boards, journals, and granting agencies, as well as investigators themselves, to efficiently incentivize full reporting and thereby, improve confidence in social science findings. In addition to increasing access to the results of scientific endeavors, a well-coordinated research ecosystem can prevent scholars from wasting time investigating the same questions in ways that have not worked in the past and reduce wasted funds on the part of granting agencies.

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

Qualitative political science, the use of textual evidence to reconstruct causal mechanisms across a limited number of cases, is currently undergoing a methodological revolution. Many qualitative scholars—whether they use traditional case-study analysis, analytic narrative, structured focused comparison, counterfactual analysis, process tracing, ethnographic and participant-observation, or other methods—now believe that the richness, rigor, and transparency of qualitative research ought to be fundamentally improved.

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. Après avoir consacré une décennie à la promotion et à la mise en œuvre des pratiques de la science ouverte en tant que chercheuse principale, mentore, fondatrice d'une base de données et rédactrice en chef, j'ai réalisé qu'il ne s'agit pas de savoir si les chercheurs doivent adopter ces pratiques, mais plutôt de comprendre comment les intégrer de manière significative. Ce commentaire, basé sur une présentation donnée lors de la conférence 2024 de la Société canadienne des sciences du cerveau, du comportement et de la cognition, plaide en faveur de deux principes clés : premièrement, la mise en œuvre de la science ouverte doit être adaptée au contexte plutôt que fondée sur une approche universelle et, deuxièmement, les réalités pratiques de la recherche exigent des approches flexibles face aux politiques idéalisées. À travers des exemples personnels - de mon évolution dans l'utilisation de la préinscription, passée d'une « recette » à un « guide » pendant mes recherches liées à la COVID-19, aux défis rencontrés avec les rapports enregistrés utilisant des ensembles de données existants -, je montre que les pratiques de science ouverte fonctionnent le mieux lorsque les chercheurs les considèrent comme des outils en constante évolution plutôt que comme des règles rigides. Je discute également des différences spécifiques au domaine dans l'adoption de la science ouverte entre la psychologie et l'éducation, ainsi que de l'importance des considérations d'équité dans la mise en œuvre. Le commentaire se termine par des recommandations concrètes à l'intention des chercheurs et des revues, en soulignant que la durabilité de la science ouverte repose sur une approche qui rejoint les chercheurs là où ils en sont, tout en maintenant la transparence et la rigueur scientifique. Public Significance Statement Open science practices like sharing research data and preplanning studies can make research more trustworthy and useful, but researchers often struggle with how to implement these practices in real-world situations. This commentary shows that rather than having rigid, one-size-fits-all rules for open science, we need flexible approaches that work for different types of research while still maintaining transparency and scientific quality. These insights can help Canadian researchers, funding agencies, and journals develop more practical and equitable policies that actually support better science rather than creating barriers for researchers with different resources or research contexts.

•We provide anecdotal evidence that different studies design (from single case reports to systematic reviews) are being labelled as “real-world” studies.•The abusive use of “real-world” terminology undermines research transparency and is not aligned with major reporting guidelines.•Authors and editors of scientific journals should adhere to reporting guidelines and identify a study by its design.