Open Science in Developmental Science

Literature Cited

1. Adhikari A, Alejandria MCP, Bradlow B, Heller P, Levine A, et al. 2022.. Public action and the pandemic: the role of civil society in shaping state responses. Rep. , Watson Inst. Int. Public Aff., Brown Univ., Providence, RI:
   [Google Scholar]
2. Adolph KE. 2020.. Oh, behave! PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, XXth International Conference on Infant Studies New Orleans, LA, US May 2016. . Infancy 25:(4):374–92
   [Google Scholar]
3. Asarnow J, Bloch MH, Brandeis D, Burt SA, Fearon P, et al. 2018.. Special editorial: open science and the Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry – next steps?. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 59:(7):826–27
   [Google Scholar]
4. Aust F, Barth M. 2021.. papaja: reproducible APA manuscripts with R Markdown. . Frederik Aust. http://frederikaust.com/papaja_man/
   [Google Scholar]
5. Borghi JA, Gulick AEV. 2021.. Data management and sharing: practices and perceptions of psychology researchers. . PLOS ONE 16:(5):e0252047
   [Google Scholar]
6. Brainard J. 2021.. Open access takes flight. . Science 371:(6524):16–20
   [Google Scholar]
7. Brakewood B, Poldrack RA. 2013.. The ethics of secondary data analysis: considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data. . NeuroImage 82::671–76
   [Google Scholar]
8. Branney P, Reid K, Frost N, Coan S, Mathieson A, Woolhouse M. 2019.. A context-consent meta-framework for designing open (qualitative) data studies. . Qual. Res. Psychol. 16:(3):483–502
   [Google Scholar]
9. Buckley PR, Ebersole CR, Steeger CM, Michaelson LE, Hill KG, Gardner F. 2022.. The role of clearinghouses in promoting transparent research: a methodological study of transparency practices for preventive interventions. . Prev. Sci. 23::787–98
   [Google Scholar]
10. Byers-Heinlein K, Bergmann C, Davies C, Frank MC, Hamlin JK, et al. 2020.. Building a collaborative psychological science: lessons from ManyBabies 1. . Can. Psychol. 61::349–63
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chang AC, Li P. 2017.. A preanalysis plan to replicate sixty economics research papers that worked half of the time. . Am. Econ. Rev. 107:(5):60–64
    [Google Scholar]
12. Coles NA, Hamlin JK, Sullivan LL, Parker TH, Altschul D. 2022.. Build up big-team science. . Nature 601:(7894):505–7
    [Google Scholar]
13. Davis-Kean PE, Ellis A. 2019.. An overview of issues in infant and developmental research for the creation of robust and replicable science. . Infant Behav. Dev. 57::101339
    [Google Scholar]
14. Duncan GJ. 2014.. Replication and robustness in developmental research. . Dev. Psychol. 50:(11):2417–25
    [Google Scholar]
15. Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J 1997.. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York:: Russell Sage Found
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ebersole CR, Axt JR, Nosek BA. 2016.. Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. . PLOS Biol. 14:(5):e1002460
    [Google Scholar]
17. Frank MC, Bergelson E, Bergmann C, Cristia A, Floccia C, et al. 2017.. A collaborative approach to infant research: promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory-building. . Infancy 22:(4):421–35
    [Google Scholar]
18. Frank MC, Braginsky M, Yurovsky D, Marchman VA. 2016.. Wordbank: an open repository for developmental vocabulary data. . J. Child Lang. 44:(3):677–94
    [Google Scholar]
19. Frank MC, Braginsky M, Yurovsky D, Marchman VA. 2021.. Variability and Consistency in Early Language Learning: The Wordbank Project. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
20. Frank MC, Saxe R. 2012.. Teaching replication. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7::595–99
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gehlbach H, Robinson CD. 2021.. From old school to open science: the implications of new research norms for educational psychology and beyond. . Educ. Psychol. 56:(2):79–89
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gennetian LA, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Frank MC. 2020.. Advancing transparency and openness in child development research: opportunities. . Child Dev. Perspect. 14:(1):3–8
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gilmore RO, Cole PM, Verma S, van Aken MAG, Worthman CM. 2020.. Advancing scientific integrity, transparency, and openness in child development research: challenges and possible solutions. . Child Dev. Perspect. 14:(1):9–14
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gilmore RO, Qian Y. 2022.. An open developmental science will be more rigorous, robust, and impactful. . Infant Child Dev. 31:(1):e2254
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hardwicke TE. 2019.. Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal. Cognition. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5:(8):180448
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hardwicke TE, Bohn M, MacDonald K, Hembacher E, Nuijten MB, et al. 2021.. Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at Psychological Science: an observational study. . R. Soc. Open Sci. 8::201494
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hawkins RXD, Smith EN, Au C, Arias JM, Catapano R, . 2018.. Improving the replicability of psychological science through pedagogy. . Adv. Methods Pract. Psycholog. Sci. 1:(1):7–18
    [Google Scholar]
28. HomVEE (Home Visit. Evid. Effect.). 2021.. Early childhood home visiting models: reviewing evidence of effectiveness. Rep. 2021-185 , Off. Plan. Res. Eval., US Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Washington, DC:. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/home-visiting-evidence-effectiveness-review-brief-2021
    [Google Scholar]
29. Ioannidis JPA. 2005.. Why most published research findings are false. . PLOS Med. 2:(8):e124
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. 2015.. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. . PLOS ONE 10:(8):e0132382
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kidd E, Garcia R. 2021.. How diverse is child language acquisition research?. First Lang. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237211066405
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
32. Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, et al. 2016.. Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. . PLOS Biol. 14:(5):e1002456
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kim J-S, Corn JE. 2018.. Sometimes you're the scooper, and sometimes you get scooped: how to turn both into something good. . PLOS Biol. 16:(7):e2006843
    [Google Scholar]
34. Klein O, Hardwicke TE, Aust F, Breuer J, Danielsson H, et al. 2018.. A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. . Collabra: Psychol. 4::20
    [Google Scholar]
35. Kluyver T, Ragan-Kelley B, Pérez F, Granger BE, Bussonnier M, et al. 2016.. Jupyter Notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. . In Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F Loizides, B Schmidt , pp. 87–90. Amsterdam:: IOS Press
    [Google Scholar]
36. Kosie JE, Lew-Williams C. 2022.. Open science considerations for descriptive research in developmental science. . PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wfp37
    [Crossref]
37. Kriegeskorte N. 2016.. The selfish scientist's guide to preprint posting. . Winnower 9::e145838.88372
    [Google Scholar]
38. MacWhinney B. 2000.. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahweh, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, 3rd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
39. MacWhinney B. 2019.. Understanding spoken language through TalkBank. . Behav. Res. Methods 51:(4):1919–27
    [Google Scholar]
40. ManyBabies Consort. 2020.. Quantifying sources of variability in infancy research using the infant-directed speech preference. . Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3:(1):24–52
    [Google Scholar]
41. Moody JW, Keister LA, Ramos MC. 2022.. Reproducibility in the social sciences. . Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48::65–85
    [Google Scholar]
42. Moshontz H, Campbell L, Ebersole CR, IJzerman H, Urry HL, et al. 2018.. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. . Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1:(4):501–15
    [Google Scholar]
43. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, et al. 2017.. A manifesto for reproducible science. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:(1):0021
    [Google Scholar]
44. Nielsen M, Haun D, Kärtner J, Legare CH. 2017.. The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: a call to action. . J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 162::31–38
    [Google Scholar]
45. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, et al. 2015.. Promoting an open research culture. . Science 348:(6242):1422–25
    [Google Scholar]
46. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. 2018.. The preregistration revolution. . PNAS 115:(11):2600–6
    [Google Scholar]
47. Nosek BA, Errington TM. 2020.. What is replication?. PLOS Biol. 18:(3):e3000691
    [Google Scholar]
48. Nosek BA, Hardwicke TE, Moshontz H, Allard A, Corker KS, et al. 2022.. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73::719–48
    [Google Scholar]
49. Nosek BA, Lakens D. 2014.. Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results [editorial]. . Soc. Psychol. 45:(3):137–41
    [Google Scholar]
50. Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CH, Van Assen MA, Epskamp S, Wicherts JM. 2016.. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). . Behav. Res. Methods 48:(4):1205–26
    [Google Scholar]
51. Open Sci. Collab. 2015.. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. . Science 349:(6251):aac4716
    [Google Scholar]
52. Petersen IT, Apfelbaum KS, McMurray B. 2022.. Adapting open science and pre-registration to longitudinal research. . Infant Child Dev. In press. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2315
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
53. Phillips J, Ong DC, Surtees ADR, Xin Y, Williams S, et al. 2015.. A second look at automatic theory of mind: reconsidering Kovács, Téglás, and Endress 2010. . Psychol. Sci. 26:(9):1353–67
    [Google Scholar]
54. Poldrack RA, Baker CI, Durnez J, Gorgolewski KJ, Matthews PM, et al. 2017.. Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. . Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18:(2):115–26
    [Google Scholar]
55. Popkin G. 2019.. Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. . Nature 569:(7756):445–47
    [Google Scholar]
56. Prentice D, Paluck EL. 2020.. Engineering social change using social norms: lessons from the study of collective action. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 35::138–42
    [Google Scholar]
57. Rowhani-Farid A, Aldcroft A, Barnett AG. 2020.. Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial. . R. Soc. Open Sci. 7:(3):191818
    [Google Scholar]
58. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011.. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. . Psychol. Sci. 22:(11):1359–66
    [Google Scholar]
59. Simon DA, Gordon AS, Steiger L, Gilmore RO. 2015.. Databrary: enabling sharing and reuse of research video. . In JCDL ’15: Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 279–80. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach
    [Google Scholar]
60. Slobin DI. 1985.. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical Issues. New York:: Psychology Press
    [Google Scholar]
61. Soska K, Xu M, Gonzalez S, Hertzberg O, Tamis-LeMonda C, et al. 2021.. (Hyper)active data curation: a video case study from behavioral science. . PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/89rcb
    [Crossref]
62. Steegen S, Tuerlinckx F, Gelman A, Vanpaemel W. 2016.. Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11:(5):702–12
    [Google Scholar]
63. Stodden V, Seiler J, Ma Z. 2018.. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. . PNAS 115:(11):2584–89
    [Google Scholar]
64. Sunstein CR. 2019.. Conformity. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
65. Tackett JL, Brandes CM, Reardon KW. 2019.. Leveraging the Open Science Framework in clinical psychological assessment research. . Psychol. Assess. 31:(12):1386–94
    [Google Scholar]
66. Towse JN, Ellis DA, Towse AS. 2021.. Opening Pandora's box: peeking inside psychology's data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change. . Behav. Res. Methods 53:(4):1455–68
    [Google Scholar]
67. van den Akker OR, Weston S, Campbell L, Chopik B, Damian R, et al. 2021.. Preregistration of secondary data analysis: a template and tutorial. . Meta-Psychology 5:. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2625
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
68. Weisman K, Markman EM. 2017.. Theory-based explanation as intervention. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24:(5):1555–62
    [Google Scholar]
69. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. 2006.. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. . Am. Psychol. 61:(7):726–28
    [Google Scholar]
70. Wingen T, Berkessel JB, Dohle S. 2022.. Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow nonscientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles. . Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 5:(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211070559
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
71. Zwaan RA, Etz A, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. 2018.. Making replication mainstream. . Behav. Brain Sci. 41::e120
    [Google Scholar]