Preregistrations are a vital part of science, and we support preregistrations in confirmatory research (which does not imply that exploratory research has no value). Many of the signatories already do preregistrations on a regular basis. However, in the commitment we define what steps in research transparency we always will do. As we will not always […]
Continue reading →Many signatories already use R (or other open source software) for data analysis and reproducible scripts. But this is it not a requirement of the commitment. Hence, SPSS syntax, for example, is OK.
Continue reading →The 12 points of the commitment come as a bundle. If you sign the commitment on this webpage, you should agree and comply to all 12 points. There are, however, two ways to alter the commitment: “Sign-and-extend”: If you agree and comply to the 12 points of the commitment but want to add other points, […]
Continue reading →No. The commitment states “from the day of signature on“. Of course it would be helpful to prepare old data sets and to release them as well (and some of us have started to do so), but it is not a requirement of the commitment.
Continue reading →From our point of view, that would be a justified exception to point 1, as long as you provide that justification in the author note. Maybe the data holder has good arguments not to release the data, e.g. for anonymity reasons. But point 12 says that we promote the values of open science at our […]
Continue reading →The commitment clearly states in the preamble: “to every guideline there can be justified exceptions”. If you can convincingly explain why your data cannot be published due to anonymity reasons, it is perfectly OK not to comply to point 1. If you sign the commitment, you simply should give that justification in the author note, […]
Continue reading →