OSIP Research Transparency Statement
Own Research
1. Preregistration: Whenever possible and sensible, we preregister our main hypotheses on a reliable platform (e.g. Open Science Framework, as.predicted.org).
2. Open Data:
(a) Whenever possible, we publish, for every first-authored empirical publication, all raw or primary data which are necessary to reproduce the reported results of the main empirical contribution (1) in accordance with ethical and legal regulations, and (2) on a reliable repository with high data persistence standards (such as the Open Science Framework).
(b) Whenever the publication of raw or primary data is not possible, we provide a statement for justification.
3. Open Analysis:
(a) Whenever possible, we publish, for every first-authored empirical publication, reproducible data analysis scripts, and, where applicable, reproducible code for simulations or computational modeling.
(b) Whenever the publication of reproducible data analysis scripts is accompanied by the publication of raw or primary data, the analysis script should work with the published data set, or the same data set in another format which should then also be published.
4. Open Reporting:
(a) We provide (and follow) the “21-word solution” in every first-authored empirical publication: “We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.”
(Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U., 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588)
If necessary, this statement is adjusted to ensure that it is accurate.
(b) If the first-authored empirical publication includes a confirmatory study, the “21-word solution” is extended by a statement reporting any related preregistration.
5. As co-authors we try to convince the respective first authors to act according to Points 1-4.
Reviewers
6. As reviewers, we add the “standard reviewer disclosure request”, if necessary (https://osf.io/hadz3/). It asks the authors to add a statement to the paper confirming whether, for all experiments, they have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and how they determined their sample sizes.
7. As reviewers, we ask for Open Data (or a justification why it is not possible).
Supervision
8. As supervisors, we put particular emphasis on the propagation of methods that enhance the informational value and the replicability of studies. From the very beginning of a supervisor-student relationship, we discuss these requirements explicitly.
9. From students, we expect that, whenever possible, a study outline is provided ahead of data collection (or analysis, if available datasets are used), for instance in the form of an exposé, preregistration, or ethics proposal.
10. From students, we expect that they provide Open Data, Open Materials and reproducible scripts to the supervisor (they do not have to be public, yet).
11. If projects result in publications, we expect that they follow points 2 through 4.
12. The grading of the final thesis is independent of the studies’ statistical significance; we consider publication desirable; however, a successful publication is not a criterion for passing or grading.
Service to the field
13. As members of committees (e.g., tenure track, appointment committees, teaching, professional societies) or editorial boards, we will promote the values of open science.
The text of this statement is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That means, you can copy, share, or adapt the text of the statement as long as you cite the original authors and link back to the original statement. Please cite the statement as OSIP - Open Science Initiative of the Faculty of Psychology of Technische Universität Dresden (2019). OSIP Research Transparency Statement. Retrieved from https://tu-dresden.de/mn/psychologie/die-fakultaet/open-science/osip-research-transparency-statement
This statement and the logo are derivatives of the Statement by Schönbrodt, F. D., Maier, M., Heene, M., & Zehetleitner, M. (2015). Commitment to research transparency and the logo by Tobias Kächele, Lena Schiestel and Felix Schönbrodt. Retrieved from http://www.researchtransparency.org
Zeichnende des Statements
Stefan Scherbaum (TUD)
Daniel Leising (TUD)
Michael Höfler (TUD)
Alexander Strobel (TUD)
Sebastian Pannasch (TUD)
Veronika Job (TUD)
Matthias Rudolf (TUD)
Robert Miller (TUD)
Diana Vogel (TUD)
Denise Dörfel (TUD)
Anne Gärtner (TUD)
Christoph Scheffel (TUD)
Anja Kräplin (TUD)
Gesine Wieder (TUD)
Philipp Kanske (TUD)
Caroline Surrey (TUD)
Katharina Förster (TUD)
Martin Schoemann (TUD)
Ulrike Senftleben (TUD)
Josephine Zerna (TUD)
Peggy Wehner (TUD)
Oliver Grenke (TUD)
Hanna Kische (TUD)
Katharina von Kriegstein (TUD)
Judith Herbers (TUD)
Olga Klimecki (TUD)
Jens Helmert (TUD)
Judith Schäfer (TUD)
Simon Schindler (TUD)
Julia Martini (TUD)
Kristina Herzog (TUD)
Corinna Kührt (TUD)
Franziska Korb (TUD)
Gundula Thiele (TUD)
René Dutschke (TUD)
Maike Salazar Kämpf (TUD)
Laura Fischer (TUD)
Helena Laudel (TUD)
Kathrin Fucke (TUD)
Deborah Löschner (TUD)
Jens Strehle (TUD)
Tanja Endrass (TUD)
Solvej Nickel (TUD)
Rebecca Overmeyer (TUD)
Malin Hilebrandt (TUD)