How well are open science practices implemented in industrial and organizational psychology and management?

IF 4 2区心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Pub Date : 2023-05-07 DOI:10.1080/1359432X.2023.2206571

Ann-Kathrin Torka, J. Mazei, Frank Bosco, J. Cortina, Martin Götz, S. Kepes, Ernest H. O’Boyle, J. Hüffmeier

{"title":"How well are open science practices implemented in industrial and organizational psychology and management?","authors":"Ann-Kathrin Torka, J. Mazei, Frank Bosco, J. Cortina, Martin Götz, S. Kepes, Ernest H. O’Boyle, J. Hüffmeier","doi":"10.1080/1359432X.2023.2206571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To address the low reproducibility and replicability of research, Open Science Practices (OSPs) have been developed. Yet, despite increasing awareness of their potential benefits, there has been only little implementation. As journals can act as gatekeepers for scientific discoveries, a potential tendency not to mention OSPs on their websites may help to explain this implementation gap. Therefore, we examined the implementation of OSPs and potential barriers in industrial and organizational psychology and management (IOP/management) journals. Study 1 examined whether and how N = 257 journal websites referred to OSPs. We found that most journals did not mention OSPs. Specifically, only two (1.0%), five (2.5%), and 14 (6.9%) IOP/management journals mentioned preregistration, registered reports, and explicitly welcomed replications, respectively. Study 2 investigated perceived barriers to implementing OSPs with a survey among editors of the IOP/management journals from Study 1. Among the 40 responding editors, 14, 10, and five attributed the lacking implementation of OSPs to a lesser suitability of OSPs for qualitative research, missing authority, and missing familiarity with OSPs, respectively. Based on our findings, the implementation gap could be mitigated by developing new and refining extant OSPs, starting bottom-up initiatives (e.g., researchers directly contacting publishers), and increasing the availability of information on OSPs.","PeriodicalId":48240,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"461 - 475"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2206571","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT To address the low reproducibility and replicability of research, Open Science Practices (OSPs) have been developed. Yet, despite increasing awareness of their potential benefits, there has been only little implementation. As journals can act as gatekeepers for scientific discoveries, a potential tendency not to mention OSPs on their websites may help to explain this implementation gap. Therefore, we examined the implementation of OSPs and potential barriers in industrial and organizational psychology and management (IOP/management) journals. Study 1 examined whether and how N = 257 journal websites referred to OSPs. We found that most journals did not mention OSPs. Specifically, only two (1.0%), five (2.5%), and 14 (6.9%) IOP/management journals mentioned preregistration, registered reports, and explicitly welcomed replications, respectively. Study 2 investigated perceived barriers to implementing OSPs with a survey among editors of the IOP/management journals from Study 1. Among the 40 responding editors, 14, 10, and five attributed the lacking implementation of OSPs to a lesser suitability of OSPs for qualitative research, missing authority, and missing familiarity with OSPs, respectively. Based on our findings, the implementation gap could be mitigated by developing new and refining extant OSPs, starting bottom-up initiatives (e.g., researchers directly contacting publishers), and increasing the availability of information on OSPs.

查看原文本刊更多论文

开放科学实践在工业和组织心理学和管理中的实施情况如何？

摘要为了解决研究的可重复性和可复制性低的问题，开发了开放科学实践（OSPs）。然而，尽管人们越来越意识到它们的潜在好处，但实施情况却很少。由于期刊可以充当科学发现的看门人，在其网站上不提及OSP的潜在趋势可能有助于解释这种实施差距。因此，我们研究了OSP的实施情况以及行业和组织心理学与管理（IOP/management）期刊中的潜在障碍。研究1检查了N是否以及如何 = 257个期刊网站提到OSP。我们发现大多数期刊都没有提到OSP。具体而言，只有两种（1.0%）、五种（2.5%）和14种（6.9%）IOP/管理期刊分别提到了预注册、注册报告和明确欢迎复制。研究2通过对研究1中IOP/管理期刊编辑的调查，调查了实施OSP的感知障碍。在40名回应的编辑中，14名、10名和5名分别将缺乏外包服务提供商的实施归因于外包服务提供商不太适合进行定性研究、缺乏权威和对外包服务提供商缺乏熟悉。根据我们的研究结果，可以通过开发新的和完善现有的外包服务提供商、启动自下而上的举措（例如，研究人员直接联系出版商）以及增加外包服务提供商信息的可用性来缓解实施差距。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

8.00

自引率

2.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The mission of the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology is to promote and support the development of Work and Organizational Psychology by publishing high-quality scientific articles that improve our understanding of phenomena occurring in work and organizational settings. The journal publishes empirical, theoretical, methodological, and review articles that are relevant to real-world situations. The journal has a world-wide authorship, readership and editorial board. Submissions from all around the world are invited.