This publication provides an overview of some practical tools and strategies that researchers can implement in their own workflow to increase replicability and the overall quality of psychology research.

Many efforts are underway to promote data sharing in psychology, however it is currently unclear if the in-principle benefits of data availability are being realized in practice. In a recent study, we found that a mandatory open data policy introduced at the journal Cognition led to a substantial increase in available data, but a considerable portion of this data was not reusable. For data to be reusable, it needs to be clearly structured and well-documented. Open data alone will not be enough to achieve the benefits envisioned by proponents of data sharing.

Study attempts to reproduce values reported in 35 articles published in the journal Cognition revealed analysis pipelines peppered with errors. Elements of a reproducible workflow that may help to mitigate these problems in future research are outlined.

Preprint showing evidence of a steady increase in reciprocity over the years despite a negative correlation between obtaining citations through reciprocity and long-term career success.

To keep authorship fair, journals in all fields should list authors based on their contribution rather than in alphabetical order.

Preprint suggests that in all areas Google Scholar citation data is essentially a superset of Web of Science and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.

Based on 17 studies, this literature review critically assesses the literature on doctoral student well-being.

We asked federal scientists what it's like to work in the Trump administration. Their answers point to widespread, serious problems that should concern all of us.

We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community.

A set of complementary guides covering the main aspects of depositing software into digital repositories.

"Science, research and innovation performance of the EU, 2018" (SRIP) analyses Europe’s performance dynamics in science, research and innovation and its drivers, in a global context.

What does the Trump administration's assault on federal science look like to the people who experience it every day in their workplaces?

Citizen science: crowdsourcing for systematic reviews looks at how people can contribute their expertise to scientific studies using new online platforms - even if they don’t think of themselves as researchers or scientists.

A novel set of text- and citation-based metrics that can be used to identify high-impact and transformative works. The 11 metrics can be grouped into seven types: Radical-Generative, Radical-Destructive, Risky, Multidisciplinary, Wide Impact, Growing Impact, and Impact (overall).

Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.

Only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy.

In a slightly depressing new paper, researchers describe how they tried to get access to the data behind 111 of the most cited psychology and psychiatry papers published in the past decade. Only 14% of the datasets were made available with no restrictions on who could access them.

An introductory course that guides students towards a reproducible science workflow.

This study's report presents a comprehensive review of the research, experiences, and effects of sexual harassment on women and their careers in science, engineering, and medicine.

Who benefits from sharing data? The scientists of future do, as data sharing today enables new science tomorrow. Far from being mere rehashes of old datasets, evidence shows that studies based on analyses of previously published data can achieve just as much impact as original projects.

This Frontiers blog post from presents a journal analysis contrasting open access journals and subscription journals based on data from SCImago (Scopus).

Summarizing the literature on predatory journals, describing its epidemiological characteristics, and extracting empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have published a framework to help academics, research institutions and funders bring open science to the fore.

A study suggesting that implicit biases and social prestige mechanisms (e.g., the Matthew effect) have a powerful impact on where NIH grant dollars go and the net return on taxpayers investments. They support evidence-based changes in funding policy geared towards a more equitable, more diverse and more productive distribution of federal support for scientific research.

A study documenting acknowledgment sections and identified "acknowledged programmers" in Theoretical Population Biology articles published between 1970 and 1990. While only 7% of authors were women, 43% of acknowledged programmers were women.

This paper examines the development of open knowledge in China through two case studies: the development of Chinese open access (OA) journals, and national-level OA repositories.

CiteSpace cascading citation expansion has the potential to improve our understanding of the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge.

Article covers basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use Open Peer Review to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.

Techniques for overcoming the challenges of open manuscript writing.

Supporting the EUA membership with the development of research assessment approaches that focus on research quality, potential and future impact, and that take into account Open Science practices.