Author: Improving Psych

In just a few short days (August 15th, 2026), PsyArXiv – the community preprint server for psychology – turns 10! 🥳 Over the past decade, our community has published over 58,000 preprints, allowing researchers and the public timely and open access to scientific works. We are delighted to see the strong uptake of the service by psychologists, and we want to take this opportunity to express SIPS’ strong commitment to a vibrant and growing preprint ecosystem. 

The Center for Open Science (COS) has recently announced their decision to phase out OSF Projects, a tool where researchers could post their data, code, and materials to make them openly accessible. OSF Projects has been used by tens of thousands of psychologists to make their research more open and transparent, and its loss is greatly felt by our community.

Given this news, SIPS wants to share how we are approaching our support of open infrastructure, specifically with respect to PsyArXiv, which is maintained by SIPS and currently hosted on the OSF. Below, we provide answers to anticipated questions that the community will have about PsyArXiv.

FAQs about PsyArXiv

1. Do the changes with OSF Projects affect PsyArXiv?

Changes with OSF Projects do not impact posting preprints on PsyArXiv. However, after the OSF Projects phase-out period concludes, users will no longer be able to connect an OSF Project with a PsyArXiv preprint. Users will still have the option to link open data, code, and materials hosted elsewhere to their PsyArXiv preprints. 

2. Is PsyArXiv run by OSF or the Center for Open Science?

No. PsyArXiv is run and maintained by SIPS volunteers. A team of moderators oversee the daily operations of the service and handle about 100 submissions each day. Policy decisions are made by the PsyArXiv Scientific Advisory Board; Scientific Advisory Board members are approved by the SIPS Executive Committee.

3. Who owns PsyArXiv?

PsyArXiv operates under a detailed governance structure, which is headed by its Scientific Advisory Board. SIPS is responsible for hosting the server and pays for costs associated with it via funds raised specifically for PsyArXiv from member institutions and generous donors. We post updates about the service and its policies to our blog.

4. What platform does PsyArXiv currently use?

PsyArXiv is currently hosted on the Open Science Framework (OSF), which means authors use the OSF to upload preprints and readers go to the OSF website to download preprints. OSF-hosted preprint services are separate from OSF Projects; only OSF Projects is being impacted by the recent announcement.

5. Do PsyArXiv users need to worry about the preservation of their work or the future of the preprint service? 

All preprints on PsyArXiv will continue to exist in perpetuity. Around 100 new papers are submitted to PsyArXiv each day, and volunteer moderators work hard to get submissions that meet our posting guidelines approved as quickly as possible. Once approved by a trained moderator, submissions receive a DOI and are maintained indefinitely. Volunteers from SIPS and PsyArXiv are continuously working to financially sustain the service through grants, memberships, and donations to ensure that PsyArXiv is an outlet for open psychological research products for many years to come.

6. How can I get involved with PsyArXiv or share my feedback?

You can reach the PsyArXiv team by email at psyarxiv@improvingpsych.org for general feedback on our preprint service. We would also be pleased to receive expressions of interest to join our team of moderators at this form. If you are employed at an academic institution and would like someone from our fundraising team to inquire about your institution becoming a member, please reach out to psyarxiv_funding@improvingpsych.org. 

Collabra: Psychology, the official journal of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, is a mission-driven Open Access (OA) journal from the University of California Press that shares not only the research it publishes, but also the value created by the psychology community during the peer-review process. Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, including Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Methodology and Research Practices, Organizational Psychology, Personality Psychology, and Social Psychology.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the overall management of the journal, which includes evaluating current and potential new policies, selecting new Senior and Associate Editors, and evaluating and assigning manuscripts to Senior and Associate Editors. The SIPS Publications Committee encourages editors with innovative ideas about how Collabra: Psychology can best accomplish its mission to apply.

To receive fullest consideration, please submit application materials by June 30^th, 2026.

Editor-in-Chief

Application Form

You will be asked to provide a link to a CV (this can also be emailed). You will also be asked for the names and email addresses of three references who can provide information about your suitability for the position. Finally, you will be asked for responses to the following questions (no more than 500 words each, and it can be less):

1. Please describe your past editorial experience. What lessons have you learned from this experience and how has it shaped your approach to editing?
2. How do your experiences and editorial philosophy align with the goals, policies, and structure of Collabra: Psychology? How do they align with the goals of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science?
3. What features of Collabra: Psychology do you think work well, and do you think any changes are needed? Are there any changes you wish to implement if you were to become EiC?
4. What steps would you take to increase representation and inclusion of diverse and historically marginalized voices and perspectives in the journal (including authors, reviewers, and editors)?
5. What challenges do you see in the current editorial landscape and how might you address these as they affect Collabra: Psychology?
6. Please describe your capacity to take on the role of editor-in-chief. How will you manage the added responsibilities of this role in addition to any current obligations and commitments?

If you have any questions, you can contact Rich Lucas, Chair of the SIPS Publications Committee, at: richard.e.lucas@gmail.com

As we kick off 2026 and enter our second decade as an organization, SIPS leadership is reflecting on the significant progress we have made in our first decade working toward improving psychological science and our ambitious plans for the next decade.

SIPS thrives because of its engaged and passionate community, individuals like you who are committed to fostering transparency, rigor, and inclusivity in our field. Your contributions continue to shape the future of psychological science. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey as we build on that momentum for our next ten years!

---

SIPS Conferences: Present, Past, and Future 🗣️💬🌍

SIPS 2026 in Washington DC, USA: This year’s conference will be held in person in Washington DC, USA from June 8-10, 2026. We will also be holding a separate online conference on May 6-7, 2026. 

• Submissions for online SIPS 2026 are open until February 27, 2026. Submit your hackathon, workshop, unconference session, lightning talk, or poster today!
• Register for the online and in-person conferences
• Stay tuned for more information about the program!

The SIPS Conference Program Committee (led by Ekaterina Pronizius) and the SIPS Conference Logistics Committee (led by Natasha Tonge) welcome people who are willing to volunteer for circumscribed tasks at the online or in-person conference. If you will be in attendance and are interested in helping out, please indicate your willingness in the relevant question on the registration form.

Past: SIPS 2025 in Budapest, Hungary and online: Under the leadership of Priya Silverstein, SIPS held a highly successful conference in Budapest! We had over 200 in-person attendees. Thanks to the Conference Logistics Committee: Balazs Aczel (chair); and the Conference Programming Committee: Ekaterina Pronizius (chair), Harry Clelland (past member), and William Krenzer (past chair) for organizing this wonderful conference.
If you have a project that started or developed at any SIPS conference, or have updates on listed products, we would love to hear about it! Please email sips@improvingpsych.org to have it added to or updated on this list.

Future: SIPS 2027 in Melbourne, Australia. In 2027, SIPS will be partnering with our colleagues at the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS) to have a joint in-person meeting in Melbourne, Australia near the end of 2027. Conference organizers are in the process of confirming dates; more information will be made available on the SIPS website and social media soon. 
Interested in hosting a SIPS meeting where you live? Learn more about submitting a proposal to host future SIPS conferences.

---

SIPS Pop-up Events 🌐📅🖥️
In 2023, SIPS introduced Pop-up Events. Pop-up Events provide opportunities for SIPS members to discuss issues outside of the annual meetings, highlighting that improving psychological science is a year-round endeavor. If you have a pressing issue that would benefit from a SIPS event, please read our guide on how to submit a Pop-up Event proposal.

---

Publications 📄📚🔬

PsyArXiv: SIPS continues to maintain PsyArXiv, the preprint server for psychology that hosts almost 50,000 preprints, whitepapers, and other manuscripts. For more information on how PsyArXiv is being used across the globe, check out this interactive PsyArXiv dashboard created by Matti Vuorre, Outreach and Engagement Chair.
There were big changes to PsyArXiv in 2025, with the switch from post-moderation (where submitted preprints were immediately visible to users) to pre-moderation (where trained moderators manually approve each preprint before they become publicly visible). The pre-moderation system is necessary to avoid cluttering the server with low-quality, AI-generated work, but has also required a substantial increase in volunteer time and effort. The PsyArXiv team is incredibly grateful to all of the volunteers who shared their time to clear the moderation backlog and who continue to ensure that new submissions get actioned within 24-72 hours. If you are interested in volunteering as a moderator for PsyArXiv (a commitment of 30 minutes every two weeks after training), please contact the moderation leadership team (Olivia Kirtley, Helena Paterson, and Chris Holden) at psyarxiv@improvingpsych.org for more information.

In addition to the wonderful team of volunteers who keep things running through the submission queue, PsyArXiv is financially supported by generous funding from 25+ member institutions, colleges and universities whose libraries donate money annually to keep this vital service up and running. If you would like a member of PsyArXiv to get in touch with your library and/or help you make the pitch to become a member institution, please contact Kailey Lawson, PsyArXiv Fundraising Chair at psyarxiv_funding@improvingpsych.org. 

Thanks to Dermot Lynott for leading the PsyArXiv Scientific Advisory Board and to all the board members who sustain PsyArXiv.

Collabra: Psychology: Collabra: Psychology has continued to be an important journal in psychology under Don van Ravenzwaaij’s leadership, with 132 articles published in 2025, including 10 registered reports, 8 of which were submitted via a partnership with PCI-RR. Collabra is an open-access, cross-discipline psychology journal with up to two APC waivers a year available for those who need them, as well as an APC discount for active SIPS members. To support Collabra, consider submitting your papers!

SIPS Executive Committee 🪑📋💡

The SIPS Executive Committee helps steer the organization in ways that are aligned with its mission, coordinate with SIPS committees to plan conferences/events and give out awards, maintain contact with SIPS-maintained services like PsyArXiv and Collabra, and steward funds to support the longevity of this nonprofit organization. Each year, the president of SIPS is selected from the group of eligible voting members. SIPS holds elections for the Executive Committee every September. Please consider nominating yourself (or someone else) to join the Executive Committee when the time comes. Look out for an email with more details in August.

---

SIPS Awards 🏆🌟🎉

It is important to recognise the labour and commitment involved in improving psychological science, including through research (both academic and non-academic), tools, practice, science communication, and more.

To this end, The SIPS Awards Committee gives out two different types of awards to recognize projects that further the SIPS mission: SIPS Mission Awards and SIPS Commendations. These are recognition awards and come with no monetary prize. Awards are for projects rather than people to acknowledge the importance of collective efforts. Read more about our awards here.
We welcome applications for SIPS Mission Awards and Commendations. Please submit your nominations here (or nominate someone else) by April 30th to be considered for this year’s awards!

---

SIPS on Social Media 👍❤️🔄
Follow SIPS on social media, including BlueSky🦋, Mastodon🐘, and LinkedIn💼, or join the SIPS Slack.

---

As a reminder, SIPS membership is for the calendar year, and therefore expires on December 31 each year. SIPS is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and believes membership fees should never be a hurdle to participating in the organization. Therefore, if you would like to be a member of SIPS but the membership fee is a burden, you may select a discount code that fits your needs, or request a membership fee waiver. For more information and to renew your membership, visit our website. 

Beyond membership, there are many ways you can get further involved in SIPS! You can join a variety of our committees, submit sessions to our conferences, or host a Pop-up Event. And of course, we always welcome your thoughts via email [sips@improvingpsych.org] or social media (see above). You can also order official SIPS merchandise (including T-Shirts) at our ​​Bonfire Store!

Thank you for improving psychological science!

William Krenzer, SIPS President, on behalf of the SIPS Executive Board:
Kailey Lawson, SIPS Co-Chair
Steve Lindsay, Member
Lou Moses, Member
Yu-Fang Yang, Member
Wendy Higgins, Member
Grace Binion, Member
Ekaterina Pronizius, Member
Lisa Spitzer, Member
Laura Conlon, Ex Officio Member
Reihaneh Farzinnia, Ex Officio Member
Pooja Kulkarni, Ex Officio Member
Katie Corker, Financial Officer
Julia Bottesini, Community & Operations Manager

Blog post by Priya Silverstein and Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar

On November 19th, 2025, members of the Executive Boards from the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE) and the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) came together for a joint meeting between the two societies. Thirteen board members from both societies gathered online for 2 hours to explore how the two societies, which work in different disciplines but are driven by similar values, can learn from one another and identify opportunities for collaboration.

The meeting was co-organised by Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar (SORTEE) and Priya Silverstein (SIPS), and included presentations from both societies, an open Q&A, breakout sessions, and a discussion of next steps. What emerged was a clear sense of a shared purpose, differing and complementary strengths, and exciting possibilities for the future.

Common ground and shared challenges

• Funding is a challenge, but both societies are actively pursuing multiple strategies to support their initiatives (such as paid society membership, grants, and institutional partnerships).
• Member engagement varies as SORTEE benefits from a particularly active volunteer base, while SIPS sees its strongest engagement around its in-person conference and resulting project-based collaborations.
• Conferences, whether in person or online, play a pivotal role in maintaining momentum.

What can we learn from each other?

Participants discussed many ways in which the two societies can learn from each other. For example, SIPS hosts a successful yearly in-person conference, and can provide support and advice if SORTEE wishes to trial this conference format. SORTEE generates numerous events (e.g., code clubs, webinars, workshops) through the Education and Outreach Committee. SIPS could consider creating a similar committee to improve its educational offering outside of conferences. Cross-pollination in educational resources and activities is currently being discussed. Stay tuned!

Key Takeaways

SORTEE and SIPS face many of the same challenges, yet bring unique strengths. This first meeting confirmed that both communities have much to gain from continued collaboration and that cross-disciplinary partnerships can strengthen open and rigorous science across fields.

Watch this space!
Participants (alphabetically by last name): Michael Bertram, Julia Bottesini, Katie Corker, William Krenzer, Malgorzata (Losia) Lagisz, Kailey Lawson, Ndirangu Ngunjiri, Matthieu Paquet, Patrice Pottier, Marija Purgar, Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar, Priya Silverstein, and Yu-Fang Yang.

Thanks to PsyArXiv’s amazing team of 100+ moderators, all preprints meeting PsyArXiv’s requirements have now been approved! 🥳 Thank you to everyone who volunteered and worked tirelessly over the past 3 weeks to get the situation under control. This was a true community effort, and a testament to the value our community sees in PsyArXiv.

We have now resumed normal operations, which means you can expect any newly posted or edited preprint to be moderated within 24-72 hours of submission. If you post a new preprint (or create a new version of an existing preprint), please be sure to follow the policies to ensure a smooth moderation process.

If your existing preprint is still pending moderation, it is likely that a moderator found an issue which will require an update before it can be approved. The most common issues are a mismatch between the information listed on the paper (e.g., title, author names, author order) and the preprint metadata (the information that is entered into the PsyArXiv system). You can speed up the approval of any preprints with these issues by editing the preprint file and/or preprint metadata to comply with PsyArXiv’s requirements.

As you may be aware, a large number of previously-public preprints posted on PsyArXiv have become inaccessible in the past 24 hours. We know this is disruptive to many people and organizations who rely on PsyArXiv preprints, and that it is frustrating to have little information about what is happening. Please read on for further information on what happened and when you can expect the service to resume operating normally.

What happened?

As you may be aware, PsyArXiv has been receiving an influx of low-quality submissions, and the rate of these submissions has increased substantially in the last few weeks. This influx has made it necessary to transition PsyArXiv from a post-moderation system (where submitted preprints were immediately publicly available, but still marked as “pending” until moderation) to a pre-moderation system (where preprints are not available until after moderation). 

The publication of inappropriate submissions in PsyArXiv is problematic for a few reasons. First, once submissions are published, they receive a DOI, which means PsyArXiv and the related page remains accessible permanently. This is true even if the submission is subsequently withdrawn. Although withdrawn files are removed, a DOI will already have been minted (and paid for), and hosting the related webpage will continue to consume resources. When this was happening only occasionally, post-moderation was a reasonable alternative; now that the rate of problematic submissions has increased, it is no longer viable. Second, these submissions can take a while to be moderated, and while they stay up, they degrade the reputation of PsyArXiv. The move to pre-moderation has successfully contained these issues, and we’re beginning to see a decline in these types of submissions.

A consequence of the move to pre-moderation is that any existing but unmoderated submissions, which were previously publicly available, are now inaccessible to the public. Normally this would not be an issue, as moderation is supposed to take about 24-72 hours. However, because PsyArXiv was using post-moderation, not enough emphasis was placed in making moderation as speedy as would be required in a pre-moderation system. PsyArXiv (and moderation in particular) is run entirely by volunteers, and correctly allocating what few resources we have is sometimes a gamble. In this case, we were not able to anticipate that we would need to move to pre-moderation fast enough, and were not able to clear the significant backlog of unmoderated submissions before making this change, for which we apologize.

What happens next?

The PsyArXiv Team is working around the clock to get through the moderation backlog and return PsyArXiv to its full functionality. We are currently scaling up our moderation team to be able to clear the existing backlog as quickly as possible. Unmoderated preprints are being handled in a semi-random order by volunteers, and we expect the current backlog to be cleared in 3-4 weeks. Unfortunately, this means that your previously-public preprint may become accessible again tomorrow, or in 3-4 weeks, but most likely, at some point in between.

We understand how frustrating that can be – many people, if not everyone, in the PsyArXiv team have also had many of their preprints become inaccessible. We ask for your patience, and please know we all care deeply about keeping PsyArXiv functioning at its best. 

If you would like to sign up to become a PsyArXiv moderator, now or in the future, here is the link for that. 

If there is a specific preprint that you urgently need to be made available for a specific reason, please email psyarxiv@improvingpsych.org with the subject line “Urgent Moderation Request” and include the link, DOI, or the OSF identifier to your preprint (e.g., ab3de_v1) and a brief explanation for your request. Please remember that moderating specific preprints takes longer than just moving through the moderation queue, so we request that you only do this if it’s really necessary.

Thank you again for your patience,

-The PsyArXiv Team

Dear SIPS members,

We wanted to share an update with you about the SIPS 2026 in-person meeting. As some of you may know, before the most recent US election, the SIPS Executive Committee (EC) had voted to hold SIPS 2026 in Washington DC, USA. Since then, there have been many changes in the political landscape in the US. Those based in the US may be impacted by changes to their research funding and opportunities for collaboration. These changes have also impacted travel into the US, with consequences both for those based outside of the US wishing to travel into the US, and those based in the US but who are not US-citizens upon re-entry to the US following travel abroad.

Due to many of these concerns, the SIPS EC has been debating whether or not to move forward with holding the in-person conference in DC. As the conference takes a long time to plan, it was not feasible to switch to another in-person location, leaving the options to hold the conference in DC (hybrid and/or alongside an online conference), or go fully online. 

There were strong arguments on both sides, some of which are briefly summarised here:

• In favor of maintaining the in-person meeting in DC: no location is perfect, our members in the US shouldn’t be punished for the US government’s actions, our US-based colleagues need us more than ever in the current political climate, and in general our in-person conferences have had higher engagement.
• In favor of holding the conference fully online: an opportunity to trial the online-only format for the first time post-lockdown, it is more environmentally friendly, more equitable, and shows solidarity with US colleagues by allowing everyone to attend the same conference regardless of their location.

To help us make the decision, we ran “Future of SIPS” sessions at both online and in-person conferences, during which the DC conference was a big topic of discussion. We also chatted one-on-one with many SIPS members, and had lots of discussion among the leadership and organizing teams. After much back and forth, the EC has decided to move forward with holding the conference in person in Washington, DC, with an online option for those who can’t or don’t want to travel. 

This was not an easy choice. We want to be clear that we are not encouraging anyone to travel internationally. Whether or not to attend the DC meeting is a personal decision, and the risks are real. The online portion of the conference will stay a priority so that everyone can join however they feel comfortable. We also welcome proposals for the organisation of smaller “pop-up” sessions locally, e.g., to coincide with the online conference. This could be a great way to connect with folks nearby. You can submit ideas for sessions through our existing SIPS pop-up events route.

Thanks to everyone who helped us figure this out. We’re excited for next year and hope to see many of you, whether in DC or online.

Best,

Priya Silverstein, President, SIPS

Yu-Fang Yang, Co-Chair, SIPS

By Joanna Rutkowska, SIPS Awards Committee Chair

We are very pleased to announce the 2025 Awards Winners for the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science! Join us in celebrating the exceptional projects that have revolutionized the field of psychological science.

Mission Awards

SIPS Mission Awards recognize and increase awareness of a limited number of exemplary products that further the SIPS mission.

• European Health Psychology Society’s Open Science Special Interest Group
  • Emma Norris, Elaine Toomey, Tuğçe Varol, Rory Coyne, Aoife O’Mahony, James A. Green, Jo Brooks, James Reynolds, Sean Patrick Grant 
• ManyLabs Africa
  • Patrick Forscher, Dana Basnight-Brown, Hans IJzerman, Adeyemi Adetula, CREP, and more than 100 contributors (https://osf.io/dj5my/)
• SEMA3
  • Sarah O’Brien, Nerisa Dozo, Jordan Hinton, Ella Moeck, Katie Greenaway, Elise Kalokerinos, Rio Susanto, Daniel Vu, Glenn Jayaputera, Richard Sinnott, Ashemah Harrison, Mario Alvarez-Jiminez, John Gleeson, Peter Koval
• Educational resources on the replication crisis
  • Max Korbmacher, Charlotte Pennington, Flavio Azevedo, and Thomas Rhys Evans
• The EMOTE database
  • Elise Kalokerinos, Daniel Russo-Batterham, Peter Koval, Komal Grewal, Imogen Smith, Ella Moeck, Ella Wilson, Katie Greenaway, Peter Kuppens

Commendations

SIPS Commendations are a way to give recognition to projects that support the SIPS Mission, including (but not limited to) contributions that are not typically formally recognized by professional societies (e.g., blog posts, podcasts).

• Pownall et al. (2023): Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcome
  • Madeleine Pownall, Flávio Azevedo, Laura M. König, Hannah R. Slack, Thomas Rhys Evans, Zoe Flack, Sandra Grinschgl,, Mahmoud M. Elsherif, Katie A. Gilligan-Lee, Catia M. F. de Oliveira, Biljana Gjoneska, Tamara Kalandadze, Katherine Button, Sarah Ashcroft-Jones, Jenny Terry, Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir, Filip Děchtěrenko, Shilaan Alzahawi, Bradley J. Baker, Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Lydia Riedl, Kathleen Schmidt, Charlotte R. Pennington, John J. Shaw, Timo Lüke, Matthew C. Makel, Helena Hartmann, Mirela Zaneva, Daniel Walker, Steven Verheyen, Daniel Cox,  Jennifer Mattschey, Tom Gallagher-Mitchell, Peter Branney, Yanna Weisberg, Kamil Izydorczak,  Ali H. AlHoorie, Ann-Marie Creaven, Suzanne L. K. Stewart, Kai Krautter, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Samuel J. Westwood, Patrícia Arriaga, Meng Liu, Myriam A. Baum, Tobias Wingen, Robert M. Ross, Aoife O’Mahony, Agata Bochynska, Michelle Jamieson, Myrthe Vel Tromp, Siu Kit Yeung, Martin R. Vasilev, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Leticia Micheli, Markus Konkol, David Moreau, James E. Bartlett, Kait Clark, Gwen Brekelmans, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Samantha L. Tyler, Jan Philipp Röer, Zlatomira G. Ilchovska , Christopher R. Madan, Olly Robertson, Bethan J. Iley, Samuel Guay, Martina Sladekova, Shanu Sadhwani and FORRT
• Data Management in Large-Scale Education Research
  • Crystal Lewis
• Recommendations for sharing network data and materials
  • Zachary P. Neal, Zack W. Almquist, James Bagrow, Aaron Clauset, Jana Diesner, Emmanuel Lazega, Juniper Lovato, James Moody, Tiago P. Peixoto, Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld, Andreia Sofia Teixeira 
• ERROR
  • Ian Hussey, Jamie Cummins, Ruben C Arslan, Malte Elson
• Annotated introductory reading list for neurodiversity
  • Mirela Zaneva, Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili, Adrien Mathy, Christopher J Graham, Anna Hollis, Robert M Ross, Siu Kit Yeung, Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann, Max Korbmacher, Mahmoud M Elsherif, and Alyssa Hillary Zisk and FORRT
• CRediTs for Students? – Promoting Student Authorships in Psychology
  • Raphael Merz, Bennet Strahmann, Maximilian Frank, Marcel Kern, Anna Tausch, Marie Hennecke
• Open Science in the Developing World: A Collection of Practical Guides for Researchers in Developing Countries
  • Zhiqi Xu, Flavio Azevedo, Aleksandra Lazić, Piyali Bhattacharya, Leonardo Seda, Samiul Hossain, Alma Jeftić, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Olavo B. Amaral, Nadica Miljković, Zlatomira G. Ilchovska, Ljiljana B. Lazarevic, Han-Wu-Shuang Bao, Nikita Ghodke, David Moreau, Mahmoud Elsherif, Chinchu C., Sakshi Ghai, Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Danka Purić, Yin Wang, Mirela Zaneva, Felipe Vilanova, Iris Žeželj, Obrad Vučkovac, Saida Heshmati, Pooja Kulkarni, Nadia Saraí Corral-Frías, Juan Diego García-Castro, Shubham Pandey, Jamal Amani Rad, Thipparapu Rajesh, Bita Vahdani, Saad Almajed, Amna Ben Amara, Leher Singh, Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Marcelo Camargo Batistuzzo, Daniel Fatori, Frankie Fong, Zahra Khorami, Joseph Almazan, Biljana Gjoneska, Meng Liu, Hu Chuan-Peng, Robert Ross, Andrea Kis. Special thanks go to Dr Chris Graham and Dr Crystal Stentopohl for their valuable comments and suggestions.
• A Falsification Assessment Form (FAF)
  • Michael Höfler, Anja Kraeplin, Mahmoud Medhat Elsherif, Moritz Schepke, Maria Montefinese, Yashvin Seetahul, Bjørn Sætrevik, Aaron Peikert, Marton A. Varga, Lukas Wallrich
• Manashasthra Varthamanam (മനശാസ്ത്ര വർത്തമാനം) Psychology Newsletter in Malayalam
  • Chinchu C., Nithin Lalachan, Fathima Musfina, Fathima Bushra Saliha K. P., Kavitha G. Bhaskaran, Nisha Sumithran, Arif Subair
• ARIADNE – A Scientific Navigator to Find Your Way Through the Resource Labyrinth of Psychological Sciences
  • Helena Hartmann, Çağatay Gürsoy, Alexander Lischke, Marie Mückstein, Matthias F. J. Sperl, Susanne Vogel, Yu-Fang Yang, Gordon B. Feld, Alexandros Kastrinogiannis, Alina Koppold. All authors are members of IGOR, the Interest Group for Open and Reproducible Science of the section Biological Psychology and Neuropsychology, which forms part of the German Psychological Society (DGPs).
• Developing and testing a framework to “decolonise” Psychology’s research methods curriculum: perspectives from instructors and students
  • Isabella Macedo de Lucas, Chris Kent, Nilu Ahmed, Umut Ozguc, Greg Downey, Peter Allen
• Resources for Researchers website
  • Laurel Gabard-Durnam
• Quant Family Collective
  • Annie Maheux, Whitney Ringwald, Zoë Laky, Jen Traver, Jordan Taliaferro, JD Delgado
• FORRT Credit Project
  • Emily Friedel, Flavio Azevedo, Steven Verheyen, Lukas Wallrich, Mahmoud Elsherif, Antonia Krasteva, Panos Vasilikos Max Korbmacher, Susanne Adler, Richard Dushime
• International Initiatives to Enhance Awareness and Uptake of Open Research in Psychology: A Systematic Mapping Review
  • Magda Skubera, Max Korbmacher, Thomas Evans, Flavio Azevedo, Charlotte Pennington
• ReproducibiliTea reading lists
  • Amy Orben, Sophia Crüwell, Sam Parsons, Matt Jaquiery, William Ngiam, Jade Pickering, Katie Drax, Alexa Von Hagen, Lianne Wolsink, Mario Malički, David Smailes, Benjamin Farrar, Helena Gellersen, Hazel Aileen van der Walle, Hemani Sharma, Paulina Manduch, Abigail Licata, Michael Muhoozi, Anastasiia Marmyleva
• The ReproducibiliTea Podcast
  • Abigail Licata, Amy Orben, Anastasiia Marmyleva, Hazel Aileen van der Walle, Helena Gellersen, Hemani Sharma, Jade Pickering, Jan B. Vornhagen, Katie Drax, Lianne Wolsink, Matt Jaquiery, Michael Muhoozi, Paulina Manduch, Queen Saikia, Sam Parsons, Sara Sauve, Sophia Crüwell, William Ngiam
• Advancing Big-team Reproducible Science through Increased Representation (ABRIR): Putting Forward Voices from the Global South
  • Alma Jeftic, Aleksandra Lazic, Nadia Sarai Corral, Brendan Ch’ng, Sandesh Dhakal, Kwizera Rulinda, Débora I. Burin, Karla Alejandra Garduño Realivazquez, Nikita Ghodke  
• A manifesto for globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science
  • Sakshi Ghai, Rémi Thériault, Patrick Forscher, Yuichi Shoda, Moin Syed, Arathy Puthillam, Hu Chuan Peng, Dana Basnight-Brown, Asifa Majid, Flavio Azevedo, Leher Singh
• Neuroendocrinology Open Data Exchange Standard (NODES)
  • Maria Meier, Milou S.C. Sep, Stella Voulgaropoulou, Rajčáni Jakub, Conny Quaedflieg, Robert Richer, Susanne Vogel, Thomaz Bastiaanssen, Bence Szaszkó, Clephas, Emma, Christiaan Vinkers, Jens C. Pruessner and the NODES Task Force

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) and Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI-RR), together invite researchers to submit empirical research projects for consideration both for research funding from SIPS and a recommendation decision from PCI-RR.

Proposals will be formatted as a Stage 1 Registered Report (described below). Submissions from all areas of psychology are welcome. Although the registered report article format was originally designed for confirmatory research, this call also encourages exploratory registered report submissions. Research can be qualitative, quantitative, or use mixed methods.

WHAT IS A REGISTERED REPORT?

As noted by the Center for Open Science, “Registered Reports are a form of empirical journal article in which methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and peer-reviewed prior to research being conducted. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication before data collection commences. This format of article (…) eliminates a variety of questionable research practices, including low statistical power, selective reporting of results, and publication bias, while allowing complete flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings.”

For full guidelines on your Stage 1 Registered Report, please see the PCI-RR guidelines.

WHAT IS PCI-RR?

Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI-RR) is an innovative, free-to-use service that offers peer review and recommendation of Registered Reports. As a community-driven initiative, PCI-RR provides researchers with an avenue for high-quality feedback and the opportunity for streamlined publication in partner journals. Papers “recommended” by PCI-RR can be published in any “PCI-RR-friendly” journal without further peer review (see here for more info).

HOW DOES THIS REGISTERED REPORT FUNDING PARTNERSHIP (RRFP) WORK?

A Registered Report funding partnership allows researchers to secure both funding from SIPS and in principle acceptance (IPA) from PCI-RR in a coordinated process.

To apply, researchers submit a Stage 1 “snapshot” summarizing their proposed study. Researchers will then be notified about whether or not they have been provisionally allocated funding. They then have 6 weeks to submit the full Stage 1 RR to PCI-RR.

The process looks like this:

1. Researchers prepare a Stage 1 snapshot using the PCI-RR template (here) 
2. Submit the snapshot to SIPS in this Google form along with a proposed budget by August 1st.
3. If eligible, the submission will enter a lottery-based selection process where funds are allocated until the funds are exhausted.
4. Researchers will be notified about whether or not they have been allocated funding.
5. Researchers who are provisionally allocated funding should submit the same snapshot to PCI-RR within 7 days, and then will have 6 weeks to submit their full Stage 1 RR to PCI-RR (including their grant number in their cover letter that accompanies their snapshot).
6. Researchers who are provisionally allocated funding will move through the standard review process at PCI-RR, albeit with a time limit of 4 weeks to reply to each round of review (unless a shorter time is agreed with SIPS in advance).

If at any point the Stage 1 submission (at either snapshot stage or full manuscript stage) is rejected, the allocated funds will be returned to the pool. If Stage 1 IPA is awarded by PCI-RR, SIPS will transfer the funds to the award winner. Award winners will be required to submit expense receipts for how the money was spent at the end of their project (within 1 year of the award, with the possibility for extension).

ELIGIBILITY

• Contributors at any stage of their career at any type of institution are eligible to apply.
• The lead contributor must be a member of SIPS and may request a dues waiver if financial assistance is needed to join (note, do this before joining as a member). 
• Individuals may only be authors on one application per deadline. 
• PCI-RR’s Managing Board and members of the SIPS Executive Committee are ineligible to be authors on submissions.

Please only apply for this funding if you would be unable to conduct the planned research without it.

We especially encourage and will give preference to projects led by scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: scholars who are members of one or more groups that are underrepresented in psychological science, scholars in training (e.g., students, postdocs), scholars who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years, scholars working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited, and scholars outside Canada, Europe, and USA.

Evaluation Process and Lottery Weighting:

Eligible submissions will enter a weighted lottery to allocate funding to a portion of the eligible submissions. This is a pilot of this funding scheme, so SIPS reserves the right to make changes to the evaluation process during the pilot if unforeseen issues arise. This approach aims to promote equitable access to funding. If any changes to the evaluation process are made, these will be communicated transparently.

Timelines and Fund Return Policy

• Following notifications of provisional funding from SIPS, awardees must submit a full Stage 1 registered report to PCI-RR within six weeks.
• Following each round of review at PCI-RR, awardees will have four weeks to submit their revisions.
• SIPS will disburse the funds only after confirmation of active SIPS membership AND receiving of IPA from PCI-RR.
• If the project is not completed, or funds remain unused, awardees must return the remaining funds within 12 months of the award date unless an extension is approved. Failure to return unused funds or comply with deadlines may affect eligibility for future funding.
• Awardees are required to submit expense receipts detailing fund usage at the conclusion of their project

For the Stage 1 Registered Report, any subsequent revisions, and completion of the project, extensions may be granted upon formal request before the deadline.

AWARD INFORMATION

The application process will combine funding review by SIPS with peer review by PCI-RR.

Contributors may request up to $2,000 USD. SIPS intends to commit $10,000 USD total. PCI-RR offers several APC-free routes to publication, either in one of the PCI-RR-friendly journals that have no APCs or APC waivers (see above).

Funds cannot be used to pay for:

• Any journal publication fees (including APCs)
• Salary support for personnel
• Indirect costs to institutions

Funds may be used to cover a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the research (e.g., undergraduate or graduate research assistance).

The lead contributor must commit to carrying out the proposed research. If contributors no longer plan to conduct the research, they must return the funds within 12 months of the award date unless an extension is formally requested and approved. If the project is not completed by the deadline outlined in the original information submitted to SIPS, an explanation and revised deadline must be provided.

HOW TO APPLY

• Prepare your Stage 1 snapshot using the PCI-RR template
• Submit the snapshot and proposed budget via the SIPS application form by August 1st
• If deemed eligible, your application will enter the weighted lottery for funding allocation

QUESTIONS AND SPONSORSHIP

Questions? Please email sips@improvingpsych.org