Conferences General

Diversity Re-Hack at SIPS 2021

Kimberly Quinn

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) Committee

Following the SIPS 2021 virtual conference, session leaders were invited to respond to a survey to reflect on their diversity and inclusiveness practices.

They were prompted to consider diversity in a number of ways:

  1. Identity-based forms of diversity (e.g., gender expression, sexuality, race and ethnicity, neurodiversity)
  2. Geographic diversity (researcher location, culture)
  3. Career-stage diversity (academic: undergraduate students, (post)graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty; non-academic: probationary/temporary versus permanent)
  4. Institutional diversity (high schools, two-year / community colleges, undergraduate institutions, Masters-granting institutions, PhD-granting institutions, nonacademic organizations)
  5. Resource diversity (institutional support and infrastructure, money, time)

Of the 55 session leaders contacted, 28 (51%) responded to the survey. Eight of the 55 sessions were explicitly diversity-focused (and four leaders of diversity-focused sessions responded to the survey), whereas the remaining 47 sessions were not (and 24 of these session leaders responded to the survey).

Session leaders replied to five questions. Key themes in their responses are summarized below (along with my own reflections and/or recommendations, where applicable).

Note that I sometimes distinguish between inclusion and access. I refer to inclusion as people’s real or perceived sense of being recognized and respected in their identities, and access as people’s opportunities to obtain and make use of knowledge or resources.

What did you do to foster diversity and inclusion in this session?

Session leaders reported working toward both access and inclusion. 

Inclusion-directed activities included the following:

  • Highlighting session leader diversity
  • Acknowledging session leader positionality (including epistemic positionality, e.g., positivist versus constructivist views on knowing)
  • Creating welcoming spaces (e.g., encouraging personal introductions, welcoming and teaching attendees how to share their pronouns on the virtual platforms)
  • Creating accessible and inclusive spaces (e.g., using small breakout rooms to give more  attendees the opportunity to participate, allowing the use of text-based chat in addition to or instead of speaking, enabling asynchronous contributions via shared documents)
  • Being attentive to disability and neurodivergence (e.g., using live captioning, recording sessions when the content or contributions were not private, using colorblind-friendly colors in materials, making materials available offline, providing preparation materials in advance)
  • Being attentive to identity-related issues in the presentation of session materials (e.g., acknowledging that gender-dichotomized data in a demonstration data set did not reflect expansive definitions of gender)

Access-directed activities included the following:

  • Being attentive to resource diversity (e.g., relying exclusively on open-source software)
  • Being attentive to knowledge diversity (e.g., conducting pre-session surveys to gauge knowledge, sharing background papers in advance, overviewing introductory concepts at start of session)
  • Advertising in advance (e.g., via Twitter) to attract broader attendance

One comment stood out for highlighting a potential topic for future discussion. A session leader noted that they had devoted a lot of attention to career-stage diversity and power structures while also neglecting identity-based diversity and power structures. In my mind, this comment serves as an implicit call for intersectionality as a topic of discussion. All of our various identities—based on race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability status, but also on less conventionally considered variables such as career stage, institutional type, and so on—have the potential to combine in ways that create different forms of privilege versus exclusion. We have an opportunity, and perhaps even an obligation, to consider how identities that impact inclusion and identities that impact access might interact in ways that are particularly detrimental to the scientific community by virtue of who they exclude from scientific activity and discourse.

Who will benefit from the knowledge disseminated / materials developed in the session?

Sessions leaders generally responded that beneficiaries would be sessions attendees and anyone interested in the knowledge and/or skills targeted in the session. They referred primarily to researchers, instructors, and students as those who would benefit. One notable exception was a reflection that had a “hidden curriculum” flavor to it, noting that early-career researchers, scholars in the Global South, and scholars at smaller and/or teaching-focused institutions might be particularly likely to benefit.

Reflecting on the similarity of responses to this question highlighted for me that the question was likely unclear. It might be interesting for session leaders to consider who would likely be interested in the session content and/or outputs. Would the ideas, methods, etc. appeal to all researchers, instructors, and/or students in the relevant domain? In so doing, session leaders might also consider defining who they include in each of these stakeholder categories and identifying groups or individuals who would likely not be interested in the session content and/or outputs. Should efforts be made to reach, appeal to, and serve these groups or individuals? If so, how?

Who might be left out, overlooked, or otherwise less able to benefit?

Session leaders again tended to focus on whether conference attendees were able to attend their sessions, reflecting on geographic diversity and session timing, attendee language barriers, and so on. There were some reflections on whether cultural norms and values might constrain the relevance of session content or prevent full engagement and open discussion. Another response reflected on the largely online nature of SIPS (with its virtual conference and the generally high engagement of SIPS-oriented scholars on Twitter). 

There were also a few reflections on the time, resource, or financial burden of adopting advocated practices. This kind of reflection might be useful for future consideration. Focusing less on sessions themselves and more on the products and practices that result from these sessions, session leaders might benefit from asking who has the ability and desire to use them. Perhaps more importantly, who doesn’t use the products and practices, and why? Should efforts be made to adapt products and practices to these people? If so, how?

What can you (as session organizer) and/or SIPS do to expand who can benefit? What can you (as session organizer) and/or SIPS do to address barriers?

Note. These questions were asked separately, simply to provide respondents with different ways to frame the issue. Responses to the two questions (unsurprisingly) mirrored each other, so the summaries have been combined here.

My summary for these questions is brief, because most of the responses recapitulate what we’ve heard before when asking about how to improve access and inclusion: a need to consolidate all of the outputs from SIPS efforts over the years to prevent redundancy and make identification of and access to information easier; a need to translate materials into multiple languages to address language diversity; a call for consistent automatic captioning of videos to address both language barriers and disability; and a desire to maintain the virtual conference format (or at least adopt a hybrid format) to address geographic and financial diversity. 

Responses also echoed past discussions calling for efforts to integrate epistemic diversity (i.e., diversity in approaches to “knowing,” such as positivism versus constructivism) into replicable science discussions and practices and for SIPS to publicly address and acknowledge the  colonial and imperial histories in psychology and their ongoing impact.

Finally, one respondent acknowledged not knowing how to better foster inclusiveness in a session focused on a specific methodological issue, and this resonates with me as someone who teaches quantitative research design (acknowledging its particular positivist standpoint). When I first considered whether my own pedagogy supported diversity and inclusion, I thought my mandate was to think about how I presented issues of race, gender, and the like, and to ensure that the research I highlighted included female, BIPOC, or LGBTQI+ authors, and I know from conversations with others that I was not alone in this understanding. I struggled with this in the context of research methods teaching because so many of the classic readings and even much contemporary work comes from White men. It took me a while to realize that fostering diversity and inclusion was also about my audience (i.e., my students). The issues aren’t just about the materials we present (i.e., whether we promote work from minoritized scholars) and the activities we ask people to engage in (e.g., whether we talk about race), but also how we do that. How do we engage everyone in our audience—students in our classes or participants in our SIPS sessions—and ensure that they feel valued and included?

This respondent recommended that SIPS provide training or tips to foster inclusion. My hope is that future session leaders can look to the examples described above as a starting point, and that SIPS takes up this recommendation.

A closing reflection

As noted above, session leaders were encouraged to consider diversity in terms of identity, geography, career stage, institution type, and resource availability. My sense is that the community’s discussions in recent years have done much to promote the first three types of diversity, but much less the last two. To be clear, we still have much to do on every dimension. However, until we seriously consider the constraints imposed by limited time, support, and infrastructure and how these constraints shape research practice, we will have limited success in our mission to improve psychological science.


Global Engagement Task Force Report

The SIPS Global Engagement Task Force has finished their report on issues affecting inclusion and access of scholars from regions outside the US, Canada, and Western Europe. It includes suggestions for reaching, including, and supporting these scholars, such as working with local open science groups, holding conferences in geographically diverse locations, and improving membership and financial resources.

A pretty version is hosted on PsyArXiv.

The report has been officially published at Collabra: Psychology.


SIPS EC Statement Condemning Anti-Transgender Bigotry and Violence

Rhetoric and violence against transgender people have become widespread. This increase has been accompanied by debates in mainstream academic spaces that undermine the lived experiences of transgender people and erroneously pit transgender people against cisgender women’s safety and rights. Psychology has not been exempt from this. 

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Executive Committee (SIPS EC) condemns anti-transgender bigotry and violence and denounces attempts to invalidate transgender people’s gender identity under the guise of putative scientific facts. This pseudoscientific rhetoric goes against scientific consensus and empowers behaviors that threaten the dignity, well-being, and human rights of transgender people. 

The SIPS EC also affirms its commitment to inclusivity; the Society cannot realize its mission of achieving a broad and diverse research community without being inclusive. Making the field of psychology better requires enabling people with different identities and perspectives to come together to share ideas and knowledge. That members of transgender and gender diverse communities must worry about being harassed, threatened, and assaulted is unacceptable; the egregious harm caused to transgender people is compounded by the loss of their contributions to their scholarly communities. 

Feminism and gender equality are not threatened by accurate and respectful attention to the rights of the transgender community—they are incomplete without it. The SIPS EC, therefore, calls on its members and the larger psychological science community to support transgender scholars and communities by reporting anti-transgender behavior everywhere it occurs, including SIPS events (see our Code of Conduct). We also ask that you read and consider signing this open letter about a high court decision earlier this month that limited self-report of legal sex on the 2021 census in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  

A scientific community that does not provide psychological safety to all scientists perpetuates harm to those who are targeted and alienates researchers who strengthen the science.

If you wish to signal your support for this statement by the SIPS EC, please complete this form. We will add you to a list of signatories on our website.


Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2021

SIPS Twitter Thread re: SAGE Methods, February 18, 2021

Open Letter on Collecting High Quality Census Data on Sex and Gender 

SIPS Mission Statement


SIPS Executive Committee

The following individuals co-sign this statement:

Heather Urry, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Tufts University
Siobhan Thomas, MS, PhD Researcher, School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork
Lisa DeBruine, PhD, Professor, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow
Tomiko Yoneda, MS, Graduate Student, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria
Rodrigo de Almeida, MA, Psychologist, Psychology, University of the Basque Country
Esther Maassen, MS, Tilburg University
Jamie Cummins, PhD, Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University
Madeline Harms, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor, Psychology, Macalester College
Crystal Steltenpohl, PhD, Assistant professor, Psychology, University of Southern Indiana
Marco Schauer
Jens Fuenderich, MA, University of Erfurt
David Bauer, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Viterbo University
Benjamin Le, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Psychology, Haverford College
Yurik Yang, BA, Crisis Center Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia
Gwen van der Wijk, MA, PhD candidate, Psychology, University of Calgary


SIPS EC Statement Condemning Anti-Asian Bigotry and Violence

The horrific rise of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past year has sparked an equally horrific rise in racism and vicious attacks against Asian people.* In the most recent stark example just last week, a shooter in Atlanta, Georgia, USA murdered eight people, including six Asian women. Sadly, the rise in anti-Asian racism and violence is not limited to the United States; it is a global phenomenon.

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Executive Committee (SIPS EC) condemns anti-Asian bigotry and violence. The SIPS EC is committed to working against anti-Asian bigotry and violence, white supremacy, and bias in all of our activities. Last summer the EC released a statement on anti-Black racism and police brutality; while some of the activities highlighted there have the potential to benefit Asian researchers and members of other minoritized groups, we do not assume that they will be sufficient to address all problems for all communities. Moreover, we understand this to be an ongoing process and remain committed to continuing to build a safe, diverse, inclusive community. 

For now, we call on ourselves and everyone in the psychological science community to support scholars who are targets of anti-Asian harassment or violence. If we observe demeaning, harassing, or aggressive behavior against someone else, Asian or otherwise, we must speak up. And if we belong to organizations that sponsor communal scientific activities like workshops and conferences, let’s ask them to establish clear codes of conduct that support inclusive engagement (see, for example, the Code of Conduct for SIPS events). 

The people killed in the shootings in Atlanta, their families, and their communities are very much in our thoughts: Daoyou Feng, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, Paul Andre Michels, Soon Chung Park, Xiaojie Tan, Delaina Ashley Yaun, and Yong Ae Yue. Also in our thoughts are the Asian members of our scientific community who are most deeply affected by the increasing bigotry and violence against Asian people everywhere. 

If you wish to signal your support for this statement by the SIPS EC, please complete this form. We will add you to a list of signatories on our website.


*Covid-19 Fueling Anti-Asian Racism and Xenophobia Worldwide, May 12, 2020

SIPS Statement Condemning Racism and Police Brutality, June 16, 2020

*As Lunar New Year approaches, many Asians worry about future journeys, February 11, 2021

*The Rise In Anti-Asian Attacks During The COVID-19 Pandemic, March 10, 2021

What we know about the victims of the Atlanta shootings, March 20, 2021

SIPS Mission Statement

Asian Mental Health Collective


SIPS Executive Committee

The following individuals co-sign this statement:

Heather Urry, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Tufts University
Lisa DeBruine, PhD, Professor, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow
Tomiko Yoneda, MS, Graduate Student, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria
Esther Maassen, MS, Tilburg University
Jamie Cummins, PhD, Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University
Madeline Harms, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor, Psychology, Macalester College
Crystal Steltenpohl, PhD, Assistant professor, Psychology, University of Southern Indiana
Marco Schauer
Tianze Sun, BA, PhD Candidate, Psychology, The University of Queensland
David Bauer, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Viterbo University
Benjamin Le, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Psychology, Haverford College
Yurik Yang, BA,Crisis Center Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia
Gwen van der Wijk, MA, PhD candidate, Psychology, University of Calgary


SIPS Statement Condemning Racism and Police Brutality

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) condemns racism and police brutality in the United States, where white supremacy and oppressive policing practices threaten the lives and well-being of Black people. George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Ahmaud Arbery. Tony McDade. We mourn their murders and the thousands of lives taken by state violence and police brutality.

The white supremacy at the root of this violence is also present in the world of psychological science – it is deeply ingrained in our admissions and hiring processes, our professional incentive structures, our classrooms, our departments, and our societies. Although academia may seem far removed from police departments and political offices, SIPS members play a role in constructing the community in which we all live. If we continue with ‘business as usual,’ we will perpetually recreate a community that tacitly endorses falsehoods like:

  • Science conducted by wealthy white Americans, on samples of wealthy white Americans, can serve everyone
  • Teaching about psychology means focusing on contributions of white men and women
  • Covert white supremacy is not a problem in academia

If we are more vigilant, we will find ourselves with many opportunities to challenge, question, and undermine those falsehoods.

SIPS was founded on the principle of continuing self-improvement. We cannot do good science without diverse voices, but right now the demographics of SIPS (which can be viewed here) are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities. With this in mind, we are taking the following actions:

  • We will partner with other societies whose mission is to increase the number of Black people and other underrepresented minorities in psychology. As a first step, some of us have applied to join the SPARK Society’s network of volunteers that will provide a “first review” for underrepresented minority trainees, giving rapid and constructive feedback on manuscripts before they are submitted to a journal.
  • At this year’s conference, we will host a hackathon entitled “Attracting and Retaining Members from Regional and Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds that are Underrepresented in SIPS” with the intent of continuing an ongoing conversation about ways to address this problem. We will assign an Executive Committee member to build on this work and conduct a survey aimed at identifying barriers to involvement with SIPS and open science. (Update 6/29/20: Heather Urry is now the Executive Committee managing this effort.)
  • We will introduce a new category for SIPS Mission Awards  that will recognize meta-scientific work addressing inclusivity within academia (nominations can be submitted here).
  • We will post this statement on our website along with this link for submitting suggestions to lengthen and improve this plan of action. We will add updates as we make progress on these items, making ourselves accountable to the SIPS community.

These are small steps in a much longer journey. Lasting change will take the same kind of careful, persistent, and collaborative work that the SIPS community has devoted to advocating for more open and reproducible science. With these steps, we express our commitment to doing this work, and to dismantling systemic racism within the SIPS community and academia.


Alexa Tullett, on behalf of the SIPS Executive Committee
Kimberly Quinn, on behalf of the SIPS Diversity Committee

This statement was written collaboratively by the following individuals (listed alphabetically):

Joanne Chung
Katie Corker
Melissa Kline
Benjamin Le
Hannah Moshontz
Kimberly Quinn
Alexa Tullett
Heather Urry


SIPS Demographics Report

This document reports the collected demographics of the active SIPS membership as well as the registrants for the free online SIPS2020 conference.

Active members

The following report is based on the records retrieved from Wild Apricot of 483 currently-active members (as of May 21, 2020).

Nationality. Active members represent 30 countries. 53% of members are from the USA (44%) or Canada (9%). 32% of members are from Europe: 8% from Germany, 8% from the Netherlands, 5% the UK, and 1% or fewer from each of several other European countries. A further 8% are from East Asia and the Pacific, with 5% from Australia and New Zealand and a combined 3% from China, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, The Philippines, and Hong Kong. Less than 1% are from South Asia, Latin America & the Caribbean, North Africa and the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa combined. 6.5% of members do not have a country listed.

Race and ethnicity. Most active members report being white (68%) or Asian (12%). 2% identify as Middle Eastern or North African, and only 1% identify as Black. 2.5% report being Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Puerto Rican. Race and ethnicity information was collected via checklist, so any one member might be counted in several of these categories. 11% did not provide race and ethnicity information.

Gender. Membership is 47% male and 43% female, with 10% not reporting their gender. Less than 1% of members reported a gender besides male or female.

Sexual orientation. Regarding sexual orientation, 52% report being heterosexual, 6% bisexual, 4% gay or lesbian, and 1% self-described with another label. Nonresponse is an issue, as 25% did not indicate a sexual orientation, and 12% indicated that they preferred not to report an orientation.

Transgender identity. Less than 1% of members reported transgender status. Nonresponse may be an issue, with 43% of members not indicating cis/transgender identity.

Career stage. 37% are in a faculty position, 15% are postdocs, 33% are graduate students, and 1% are undergraduate students. 8% did not indicate their career stage, and 5% indicated a career stage outside of these categories. Of the faculty positions, 54% are tenured (or equivalent), 20% are tenure-track (or equivalent), and 9% are visiting or adjunct. 16% of faculty reported indicated some other form of position.

SIPS 2020 registrants

The following report is based on the registration information of 1000 registrants for the online SIPS 2020 conference (as of June 15, 2020).

Nationality. Registrants for SIPS2020 represent 49 countries. 36% are from the United States (30%) or Canada (6%). 52% are from Europe and Central Asia (16% UK, 8% Germany, 7% Netherlands, 3% Turkey, 3% Spain, and many more). 8% are from East Asia and the Pacific (3% Australia, 2% New Zealand, and less than 1% from Philippines, Hong Kong, Indonesia, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore.). 2% are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru). 1% is from India. Less than 1% are from the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa combined.

Gender. Registrants are 32% male and 47% female, with 21% not reporting a gender. 1% of members indicated a gender besides male or female.

Race and ethnicity. 55% of registrants are White, 11% Asian, 3% Middle Eastern and/or North African, and 1% Black. 4% report being Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Puerto Rican. Again, race and ethnicity information was collected via checklist, so any one member might be counted in several of these categories. 27% of registrants did not provide race and ethnicity information.

Sexual orientation. Regarding sexual orientation, 39% of registrants report being heterosexual, 6% bisexual, 4% gay or lesbian, and 1% self-described with another label. Nonresponse is an issue, as 42% did not indicate a sexual orientation, and 8% indicated that they preferred not to report an orientation.

Transgender identity. Less than 1% of registrants indicated transgender status. 54% did not indicate cis/transgender identity.

Career stage. 22% are in a faculty position, 12% are in postdoctoral training, 36% are graduate students, and 3% are undergraduate students. 22% did not indicate their career stage, and 4% indicated a career stage outside these categories. Of the registrants in faculty positions, 42% indicated being tenured, 22% indicated being tenure track, and 15% indicated being non-tenure-track. A further 21% of faculty indicated having another kind of position (e.g. research scholar in a private corporation or non-profit organization).


repliCATS Pre-SIPS Workshop & Travel Grants

Edit (March 29, 202o): The repliCATS pre-SIPS workshop is cancelled. More information on remote participation coming soon.

The repliCATS project will run a pre-SIPS workshop about evaluating published research claims and predicting the likely outcome of replication studies. 100 travel grants of US$550 are available to those who live outside the immediate area. This is a full (long) day workshop, running the day before SIPS at the SIPS conference venue : 20 June (8:15am-5:30pm) at the Victoria Conference Centre located at 720 Douglas Street, Victoria, British Columbia. Lunch and coffee are included.

Read more about the repliCATS project here. Register your interest in the pre-SIPS workshop here.

Please note: The grants are reimbursements, not upfront payments (sorry, not our fault!). “Outside the immediate area” means more than ~2 hour commute away, but preference may be given to those travelling further. There will also be up to 50 unfunded spots at the workshop—you don’t have to accept money to attend.


SIPS EC signs letter in support of open-access publishing

Last month, several scientific societies signed a letter to President Trump urging him against mandating open-access publication of federally funded research in the United States. Among the signatories of that letter were the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science.

Today, the Executive Committee of SIPS has signed a counter-letter arguing in favor of open access. We chose to sign this letter because we see great benefits in open-access publication, which allows researchers and the public greater access to scientific research. Under the current system, publishers use volunteer labor to write, review, and edit articles, but the product of that free labor is sold back to universities and readers at a premium. We need policymakers to understand that open access publication does have advantages and that there are scientists and scientific societies that support it.

We also chose to sign this letter because it emphasizes the importance of sharing scientific findings not just with American taxpayers, who are funders of this work, but with people across the globe. One of the core values of science is universalism, and limiting access to research undercuts the global contribution that can be made by scientific work. 

We recognize that there are possible concerns with this purported executive order. Is an executive order the correct way to direct scientific publishing? How long might be required for such a transition? Will open-access article processing charges be more financially reasonable than subscription fees? Still, on balance, we feel the opportunities of open access outweigh the risks.

We had to make this decision quickly and before the letter could be made public. If you want to share your comments or concerns about this decision, you can reach us at


SIPS 2019 Year in Review

December 31, 2019

Dear SIPS Community,

As 2019 draws to a close, I want to share with you some news and reflections about SIPS. It is an exciting time for the organization as we are growing in size and expanding our activities. Our members work at the annual conference and on their own time to make psychological science better. And we continue to depend on, and benefit from, the time, energy, and vision of volunteers who serve on committees and contribute to initiatives.

The annual conference

The 2019 conference was a great success. Attendance far outpaced our expectations, owing to a large and active open science community in Europe, and many people came to Rotterdam to work on making psychology better. The program was packed with a wide range of content. We are collecting a list of products that come out of SIPS conferences. If you were in a hackathon or other session that produced something ready to share, please let us know ( so we can add it!

For 2020, we will be returning to North America, with our conference in beautiful Victoria, Canada. The program and logistics committees have been hard at work getting ready, and registration and submissions are now open! Early registration ends January 12 and is first-come, first-served. Already 200 people have registered. Don’t miss out!

Diversity and inclusion have been a core part of SIPS from its creation. At the inaugural conference in 2016, there were two cross-cutting themes considered important enough to schedule as plenary sessions before the breakout groups got to work: one on “what is open science?” and the other on diversity and inclusion. This reflected the organizers’ view that diversity and inclusion should be a part of everything we do, so that the “open” in open science truly means open and inclusive of everyone.

For 2020, we are taking a number of steps to strengthen this commitment. The 2020 programming and diversity committees will partner to ensure that at least one preplanned diversity session is on the 2020 program. Diversity programming has always been very popular, so we want to ensure that there is at least one hackathon or other session on the program. (And this should not deter anyone from submitting more!) 2020 will also see the return of the diversity re-hack. In the re-hack, people from all hackathons work together to figure out ways to make their projects and products work for as many people as possible. Thanks to generous donations from members, we are able to offer student/postdoc travel awards and diversity travel awards to make the conference more affordable. And thanks to support from the Fetzer Franklin Fund, we have geographic diversity grants available as well. Information about these grants is available on the 2020 conference website.

If you would like to make a year-end donation to the travel grants or other SIPS initiatives, you can do so on the SIPS website. (Note: these donations are tax deductible for U.S. residents.) We are very grateful to everyone who has donated money to make these activities possible.

Updated code of conduct

At our annual meetings and all other events, SIPS aims to provide a harassment-free experience for everyone. In 2017, we created a code of conduct to communicate how we will stand behind this commitment. We have recently revised our code of conduct to better align it with best practices. This includes the creation of a code of conduct committee to receive and act on reports in a way that provides continuity and can reflect multiple perspectives. You can read the new code of conduct here.


PsyArXiv continues to be a major and growing operation of SIPS. In 2019, the individuals running the service became known as the PsyArXiv Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), with new bylaws and an expanded governance structure. We have also added a Member Advisory Board with representatives from libraries and other stakeholders. We will have more to report on this in 2020. At this time, we would like to thank outgoing SAB chair Ben Brown for his extensive service and work establishing PsyArXiv. We also welcome the incoming chair of the SAB, Jack Arnal.

Preprint servers like PsyArXiv play an important role in science, offering “green” open access to articles that are otherwise hidden behind paywalls, and promoting faster and more open scientific discourse. As PsyArXiv grows, we will need to raise funds to support it. If you have the means to donate yourself, you can do so through the SIPS website. You can also help PsyArXiv by helping us contact your institution’s library to see if they want to become a supporting member (many are happy to do so!). Reach out to us at to learn more.

Collabra: Psychology

Collabra: Psychology is the official journal of SIPS, operated through a partnership with the University of California Press. SIPS provides the scientific direction and governance, including selecting editors and setting policy, while UC Press acts as publisher. Unlike many other society journals, Collabra: Psychology does not produce revenue for SIPS. It is operated by two non-profits that are committed to serving the scientific community under a unique funding model. That model keeps article processing charges (APCs) lower than other open-access journals and reinvests a portion of them back in the scientific community.

There are two ways that SIPS members can support Collabra: Psychology. The first is to serve as a reviewer or an editor. A call for new editors recently closed, but individuals interested in future openings should write to The second way to support the journal is to submit your work. Because cost should be no barrier, waivers are available for anyone who does not have institutional or grant funds to pay the APC – something I am taking advantage of myself.

In closing, I want to say what a privilege it has been to serve on the Executive Committee for the past three years. I got to see up close the dedication and hard work that so many people are putting into SIPS. I have passed the baton (to the incoming executive committee and its new president Alexa Tullett), but I look forward to continuing to work with SIPS to fulfill its mission. And I look forward to seeing all of you in Victoria in June!


Sanjay Srivastava

Past President

Committees General

New award category: SIPS Commendations

SIPS is looking for projects to award that advance the SIPS mission under its new SIPS Commendations program. These smaller commendations are planned to be awarded three times a year in November, March, and July. Nominations and self-nominations may be made here.