Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2749
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.rights.licenseCC-BY-SA 4.0-
dc.contributor.authorSchneider, Jürgen-
dc.contributor.authorMerk, Samuel-
dc.contributor.authorRosman, Tom-
dc.contributor.authorKelava, Augustin-
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-04T11:42:15Z-
dc.date.available2019-06-26T07:50:32Z-
dc.date.available2020-02-04T11:42:15Z-
dc.date.issued2020-01-29-
dc.identifier.citationSchneider, J., Merk, S., Rosman, T., & Kelava, A. (2020). Re-Building Trust. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.2749en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/2133.2-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2749-
dc.description.abstractThe Replication Crisis diminishes trust in empirical sciences and with it the perceived value of science (Lupia, 2018, 10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6_41). Open Science Practices (i.a. open data, open analysis script, open materials) are an increasingly popular approach to deal with challenges in replication and to rebuilt trust (Geukes et al, 2016, 10.1026/1612-5010/a000167). First investigations could, however, deliver no evidence toward the effect of Open Science Practices (OSP) on trustworthiness (Wingen, Berkessel & Englich, 2019, 10.31219/osf.io/4ukq5). The study investigated the effect on a discipline level (psychology) with an abstract description of OSP. Within the ongoing discussion about incentives for OSP (e.g. badges for OSP), we want to shift the focus from discipline level to concrete individual journal articles and consider epistemic beliefs of readers to play a role (Merk & Rosman, 2018, 10.31219/osf.io/cduqe): Will visible OSP (vs. not visible vs. visibly non-OSP) foster perceived trustworthiness when reading journal articles of empirical studies? Will multiplistic epistemic beliefs moderate the relationship between OSP and trustworthiness?en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherPsychArchivesen
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://osf.io/2zypf-
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.3364-
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/-
dc.subjectOpen Scienceen
dc.subjectbadgesen
dc.subjectintegrityen
dc.subjecttrusten
dc.subjectepistemic beliefsen
dc.subject.ddc150-
dc.titleRe-Building Trusten
dc.typepreregistrationen
dc.description.pubstatusotheren
Appears in Collections:Preregistration

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
cos_prereg.pdf167,47 kBAdobe PDF Preview PDF Download

Version History
Version Item Date Summary
2 10.23668/psycharchives.2749 2020-02-04 12:40:06.1 After the first preregistration we became aware of the capability of the framework used in the bain package - especially the opportunity to use multiply imputed data (Hoijtink, Gu, Mulder, & Rosseel 2019). We therefore created another preregistration
1 10.23668/psycharchives.2509 2019-06-26 09:50:32.0

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons