The State of Open Science in the Field of Psychology and Law

Objective: We conducted a survey to catalog the state of open science in the field of psychology and law. We addressed four major questions: (a) How do psycholegal researchers define open science? (b) How do psycholegal researchers perceive open science? (c) How often do psycholegal researchers use various open science practices? and (d) What barriers, if any, do psycholegal researchers face or expect to face when implementing open science practices? Hypotheses: We did not make specific hypotheses given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study. Method: We surveyed 740 psychology and law researchers (45% faculty, 64% doctoral degree, 66% women, and 85% White/non-Hispanic) about their perceptions of and experiences with open science using a mixed-methods design. They defined open science in their own words, described their opinion of the movement, indicated their experiences with any open science practices in their own work (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, preprints, open access, and open peer review), and identified any barriers or concerns they faced in implementing open science practices. Results: A majority of respondents had wholly positive (60%) or mostly positive (28%) perceptions of open science. Most respondents (58%) had participated in at least one open science practice; however, fewer than half (44%) had an account on the Open Science Framework or similar repository. The most common barriers mentioned about implementing open science practices were concerns about specific practices (42%), lacking knowledge (24%), and requiring more time, effort, or resources (16%). Conclusions: Like those in other disciplines, psychology and law researchers hold generally positive perceptions of open science that do not completely align with their reported use of specific practices. Overcoming perceived barriers to open science will require education, resources, open discourse, and collaborative problem solving.