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:
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.
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
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
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..
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 .
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
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]