1932

Abstract

Open science policies have proliferated in the social and behavioral sciences in recent years, including practices around sharing study designs, protocols, and data and preregistering hypotheses. Developmental research has moved more slowly than some other disciplines in adopting open science practices, in part because developmental science is often descriptive and does not always strictly adhere to a confirmatory approach. We assess the state of open science practices in developmental science and offer a broader definition of open science that includes replication, reproducibility, data reuse, and global reach.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-042335
2022-12-09
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/devpsych/4/1/annurev-devpsych-120920-042335.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-042335&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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 25:4374–92
    [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 59:7826–27
    [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 16:5e0252047
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brainard J. 2021. Open access takes flight. Science 371:652416–20
    [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. 16:3483–502
    [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. 107:560–64
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coles NA, Hamlin JK, Sullivan LL, Parker TH, Altschul D. 2022. Build up big-team science. Nature 601:7894505–7
    [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. 50:112417–25
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J, eds. 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. 14:5e1002460
    [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 22:4421–35
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Frank MC, Braginsky M, Yurovsky D, Marchman VA. 2016. Wordbank: an open repository for developmental vocabulary data. J. Child Lang. 44:3677–94
    [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. 56:279–89
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gennetian LA, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Frank MC. 2020. Advancing transparency and openness in child development research: opportunities. Child Dev. Perspect. 14:13–8
    [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. 14:19–14
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilmore RO, Qian Y. 2022. An open developmental science will be more rigorous, robust, and impactful. Infant Child Dev. 31:1e2254
    [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. 5:8180448
    [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 Ret al 2018. Improving the replicability of psychological science through pedagogy. Adv. Methods Pract. Psycholog. Sci. 1:17–18
    [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. 2:8e124
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. 2015. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLOS ONE 10:8e0132382
    [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. 14:5e1002456
    [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. 16:7e2006843
    [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. Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas F Loizides, B Schmidt 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 51:41919–27
    [Google Scholar]
  40. ManyBabies Consort 2020. Quantifying sources of variability in infancy research using the infant-directed speech preference. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3:124–52
    [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. 1:4501–15
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD et al. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:10021
    [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 348:62421422–25
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. PNAS 115:112600–6
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nosek BA, Errington TM. 2020. What is replication?. PLOS Biol. 18:3e3000691
    [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. 45:3137–41
    [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 48:41205–26
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Open Sci. Collab 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:6251aac4716
    [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. 26:91353–67
    [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. 18:2115–26
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Popkin G. 2019. Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. Nature 569:7756445–47
    [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. 7:3191818
    [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. 22:111359–66
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Simon DA, Gordon AS, Steiger L, Gilmore RO. 2015. Databrary: enabling sharing and reuse of research video. JCDL ’15: Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries279–80 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. 11:5702–12
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Stodden V, Seiler J, Ma Z. 2018. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. PNAS 115:112584–89
    [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. 31:121386–94
    [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 53:41455–68
    [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. 24:51555–62
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. 2006. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am. Psychol. 61:7726–28
    [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]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-042335
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-042335
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error