Open Science – what exactly does that mean? 

Germar: “Open Science describes a movement within the scientific community that began in psychology but has since become interdisciplinary. The goal is to achieve a more transparent scientific process across all areas of research. This means that materials, data, methods, hypotheses, and results are made publicly available. Fundamentally, this is nothing new: transparency and accessibility have always been ideals of science. Open Science seeks to move closer to these ideals and put them into practice.”

What are the advantages of Open Science? 

Richter: “Open Science makes the exchange between scientists faster and more accessible. Anyone who wants to view research results and use them for their own research doesn’t have to request them and wait, but can get started right away. Likewise, data can be verified more quickly and studies can be replicated more effectively to validate results. Pre-registration, which is now increasingly mandatory, plays a key role here. In this process, scientists define clear hypotheses, expectations, and methods in their studies before data collection begins and publish them. Transparency in the approach is thus ensured - before results are produced. The goal is to make it harder to falsify results and to demonstrate that they do not always have to be predictable.”

Germar: “This is where the image of research ‘for the drawer’ fits in. Often, studies that have not shown (expected) results are not published, meaning the approaches and hypotheses used are not accessible and, in a sense, disappear into the drawer. Yet these hold great potential, because to construct a holistic picture, one must also be aware of the contradictory results. Open Science aims to move away from the exclusively results-driven mindset and bring the scientific process as a whole to the forefront.”

What is the current status? 

Richter: “As an extension of pre-registration, many scientific journals now feature so-called registered reports. The pre-registration is submitted to the journal as a kind of initial publication on the project. The content is then reviewed by experts, and potential critiques can be addressed directly before data collection begins. Subsequently, the project is accepted for publication - even before the results are known. Remember: Out of the drawer.”

Germar: “Open Science is a cultural shift that is not yet fully established. More and more data is already being made accessible, and more and more journals are requiring the implementation of Open Science standards (e.g., open data or pre-registration). At the same time, the topic must continue to be promoted, and researchers must be willing to learn in order to implement Open Science effectively. It also remains to be seen how to handle data that is subject to particularly high protection standards and can only be partially anonymized, for example in medicine or psychotherapy. There is still a lot of work to be done here.”

And at the Institute of Psychology at the University of Hildesheim? 

Germar: “At the Institute of Psychology, the position of an Open Science Coordinator has been established in recent years. In this role, I advise and support the routine use of Open Science in the various projects at the institute. The message here is that Open Science is now an integral part of scientific work. That’s why, for example, there are also workshops for students so that they too can acquire the necessary skills very early on in their scientific training.”

Richter: “The Neurodidactics and Experimental Psychopathology working groups are also involved in an international project dedicated to replicating well-known psychological studies from the past twenty years. Here, we work with various elements of Open Science, such as registered reports. This greatly facilitates cross-national collaboration.”

In a nutshell: How does Open Science help? 

Richter: “A cultural shift toward more Open Science increases the value of research - even without confirmation of expected results. Because good scientists aren’t necessarily those who publish a lot, but those who work transparently. Early external peer review facilitates consensus-building within the scientific community and enables scientists to reach their goals together. Even though Open Science is not yet implemented everywhere - and cannot be - there is strong motivation to do so. It’s wonderful to see this, especially in these conflict-ridden times, when it’s all the more important to work together.”