Melanie B Fessinger,Bradley D McAuliff,Anthony D Perillo
{"title":"开放科学在心理学和法学领域的现状。","authors":"Melanie B Fessinger,Bradley D McAuliff,Anthony D Perillo","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nWe conducted a survey to catalog the state of open science in the field of psychology and law. We addressed four major questions: (a) How do psycholegal researchers define open science? (b) How do psycholegal researchers perceive open science? (c) How often do psycholegal researchers use various open science practices? and (d) What barriers, if any, do psycholegal researchers face or expect to face when implementing open science practices?\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\nWe did not make specific hypotheses given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nWe surveyed 740 psychology and law researchers (45% faculty, 64% doctoral degree, 66% women, and 85% White/non-Hispanic) about their perceptions of and experiences with open science using a mixed-methods design. They defined open science in their own words, described their opinion of the movement, indicated their experiences with any open science practices in their own work (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, preprints, open access, and open peer review), and identified any barriers or concerns they faced in implementing open science practices.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA majority of respondents had wholly positive (60%) or mostly positive (28%) perceptions of open science. Most respondents (58%) had participated in at least one open science practice; however, fewer than half (44%) had an account on the Open Science Framework or similar repository. The most common barriers mentioned about implementing open science practices were concerns about specific practices (42%), lacking knowledge (24%), and requiring more time, effort, or resources (16%).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nLike those in other disciplines, psychology and law researchers hold generally positive perceptions of open science that do not completely align with their reported use of specific practices. Overcoming perceived barriers to open science will require education, resources, open discourse, and collaborative problem solving. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The state of open science in the field of psychology and law.\",\"authors\":\"Melanie B Fessinger,Bradley D McAuliff,Anthony D Perillo\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nWe conducted a survey to catalog the state of open science in the field of psychology and law. We addressed four major questions: (a) How do psycholegal researchers define open science? (b) How do psycholegal researchers perceive open science? (c) How often do psycholegal researchers use various open science practices? and (d) What barriers, if any, do psycholegal researchers face or expect to face when implementing open science practices?\\r\\n\\r\\nHYPOTHESES\\r\\nWe did not make specific hypotheses given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHOD\\r\\nWe surveyed 740 psychology and law researchers (45% faculty, 64% doctoral degree, 66% women, and 85% White/non-Hispanic) about their perceptions of and experiences with open science using a mixed-methods design. They defined open science in their own words, described their opinion of the movement, indicated their experiences with any open science practices in their own work (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, preprints, open access, and open peer review), and identified any barriers or concerns they faced in implementing open science practices.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nA majority of respondents had wholly positive (60%) or mostly positive (28%) perceptions of open science. Most respondents (58%) had participated in at least one open science practice; however, fewer than half (44%) had an account on the Open Science Framework or similar repository. The most common barriers mentioned about implementing open science practices were concerns about specific practices (42%), lacking knowledge (24%), and requiring more time, effort, or resources (16%).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nLike those in other disciplines, psychology and law researchers hold generally positive perceptions of open science that do not completely align with their reported use of specific practices. Overcoming perceived barriers to open science will require education, resources, open discourse, and collaborative problem solving. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000592\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000592","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的对心理学和法学领域开放科学现状进行调查。我们讨论了四个主要问题:(a)心理心理学研究者如何定义开放科学?(b)心理研究人员如何看待开放科学?(c)心理法学研究人员多久使用一次各种开放科学实践?(d)心理法学研究者在实施开放科学实践时面临或预期面临哪些障碍(如果有的话)?假设考虑到研究的探索性和描述性,我们没有做出具体的假设。方法采用混合方法设计,调查了740名心理学和法学研究人员(45%为教师,64%为博士学位,66%为女性,85%为白人/非西班牙裔)对开放科学的看法和经验。他们用自己的话定义了开放科学,描述了他们对这一运动的看法,表明了他们在自己的工作中使用任何开放科学实践的经验(即,预注册、注册报告、开放材料、开放数据、预印本、开放获取和开放同行评审),并确定了他们在实施开放科学实践时面临的任何障碍或担忧。结果大多数受访者对开放科学持完全肯定(60%)或大部分肯定(28%)的看法。大多数受访者(58%)至少参加过一次开放科学实践;然而,只有不到一半(44%)的人拥有开放科学框架或类似存储库的帐户。关于实施开放科学实践最常见的障碍是对具体实践的关注(42%),缺乏知识(24%),以及需要更多的时间、精力或资源(16%)。与其他学科的研究人员一样,心理学和法学研究人员对开放科学持普遍积极的看法,但这种看法与他们报告的具体实践并不完全一致。克服开放科学的障碍需要教育、资源、开放话语和协作解决问题。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
The state of open science in the field of psychology and law.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a survey to catalog the state of open science in the field of psychology and law. We addressed four major questions: (a) How do psycholegal researchers define open science? (b) How do psycholegal researchers perceive open science? (c) How often do psycholegal researchers use various open science practices? and (d) What barriers, if any, do psycholegal researchers face or expect to face when implementing open science practices?
HYPOTHESES
We did not make specific hypotheses given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study.
METHOD
We surveyed 740 psychology and law researchers (45% faculty, 64% doctoral degree, 66% women, and 85% White/non-Hispanic) about their perceptions of and experiences with open science using a mixed-methods design. They defined open science in their own words, described their opinion of the movement, indicated their experiences with any open science practices in their own work (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, preprints, open access, and open peer review), and identified any barriers or concerns they faced in implementing open science practices.
RESULTS
A majority of respondents had wholly positive (60%) or mostly positive (28%) perceptions of open science. Most respondents (58%) had participated in at least one open science practice; however, fewer than half (44%) had an account on the Open Science Framework or similar repository. The most common barriers mentioned about implementing open science practices were concerns about specific practices (42%), lacking knowledge (24%), and requiring more time, effort, or resources (16%).
CONCLUSIONS
Like those in other disciplines, psychology and law researchers hold generally positive perceptions of open science that do not completely align with their reported use of specific practices. Overcoming perceived barriers to open science will require education, resources, open discourse, and collaborative problem solving. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.