The Evolution of Data Sharing Practices in the Psychological Literature

Judith Neve — 2025-04-09

Sharing data has many benefits. However, data sharing rates remain low, for the most part well below 50%. A variety of interventions encouraging data sharing have been proposed. We focus here on editorial policies. Kidwell et al. (2016) assessed the impact of the introduction of badges in Psychological Science; Hardwicke, Mathur, et al. (2018) assessed the impact of Cognition’s mandatory data sharing policy. Both studies found policies to improve data sharing practices, but only assessed the impact of the policy for up to 25 months after its implementation. We examined the effect of these policies over a longer term by reusing their data and collecting a follow-up sample including articles published up until December 31st, 2019. We fit generalized additive models as these allow for a flexible assessment of the effect of time, in particular to identify nonlinear changes in the trend. These models were compared to generalized linear models to examine whether the non-linearity is needed. Descriptive results and the outputs from generalized additive and linear models were coherent with previous findings: following the policies in Cognition and Psychological Science, data sharing statement rates increased immediately and continued to increase beyond the timeframes examined previously, until reaching close to 100%. In Clinical Psychological Science, data sharing statement rates started to increase only two years following the implementation of badges. Reusability rates jumped from close to 0% to around 50% but did not show changes within the pre-policy nor the post-policy timeframes. Journals that did not implement a policy showed no change in data sharing rates or reusability over time. There was variability across journals in the levels of increase, so we suggest future research should examine a larger number of policies to draw conclusions about their efficacy. We also encourage future research to investigate the barriers to data sharing specific to psychology subfields to identify the best interventions to tackle them.

Practicing Theory Building in a Many Modelers Hackathon

Marc Jekel — 2025-03-21

Scientific theories reflect some of humanity's greatest epistemic achievements. The best theories motivate us to search for discoveries, guide us towards successful interventions, and help us to explain and organize knowledge. Such theories require a high degree of specificity, which in turn requires formal modeling. Yet, in psychological science, many theories are not precise and psychological scientists often lack the technical skills to formally specify existing theories. This problem raises the question: How can we promote formal theory development in psychology, where there are many content experts but few modelers? In this paper, we discuss one strategy for addressing this issue: a Many Modelers approach. Many Modelers consists of mixed teams of modelers and non-modelers that collaborate to create a formal theory of a phenomenon. Here, we report a proof of concept of this approach, which we piloted as a three-hour hackathon at the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science conference in 2021. After surveying the participants, results suggest that (a) psychologists who have never developed a formal model can become (more) excited about formal modeling + and theorizing; (b) a division of labor in formal theorizing is possible where only one or a few team members possess the prerequisite modeling expertise; and (c) first working prototypes of a theoretical model can be created in a short period of time. These results show some promise for the many modelers approach as a team science tool for theory development.

Meta-Psychology

The Evolution of Data Sharing Practices in the Psychological Literature

Practicing Theory Building in a Many Modelers Hackathon