PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

778

Title *

Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakiause asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Marcel Martončik, Matúš Adamkovič, Gabriel Baník, Denisa Fedáková, Samar Issmailová, Pavol Kačmár, Michal Kentoš, Viktória Majdáková, Jana Papcunová, Lenka VargováPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

Various responsible research practices emphasizing transparency, such as open data, open code, open peer review, and preregistration, have been introduced to enhance the reproducibility and replicability of findings. The ongoing initiatives of open science movements are crucial for bolstering the credibility and integrity of social science research. However, awareness of these practices and progress in their adoption has been slow, and numerous barriers have been encountered at individual and systemic levels. The objective of this study is to conduct a qualitative examination of the barriers and facilitators of transparent and responsible research practices in the field of psychology in Slovakia. The study aims to map the perceptions and experiences of the barriers and facilitators unique to different stakeholder groups and specific research practices. Data will be collected through interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of master’s and PhD students, researchers, policymakers, and media representatives, all of whom are from the field of psychology. Thematic analysis will be employed to identify the most common barriers, facilitators, and overarching themes. [results added later]. The findings could provide valuable insights to various stakeholders about which practices need support, the nature of that support, and how different barriers are interconnected and mutually reinforce each other.

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

transparency, open science, reproducibility, sharing, responsible research practices, questionable research practices

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2024-04-29 14:39:12

Recommender

Charlotte Pennington

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY