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 This is true even if the submission is subsequently withdrawn. Although withdrawn files are removed, a DOI will already have been minted (and paid for), and hosting the related webpage will continue to consume resources.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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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
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
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.
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).
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
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
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 ofpsychology 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:
Researchers prepare a Stage 1 snapshot using the PCI-RR template (here)
Submit the snapshot to SIPS in this Google form along with a proposed budget by August 1st.
If eligible, the submission will enter a lottery-based selection process where funds are allocated until the funds are exhausted.
Researchers will be notified about whether or not they have been allocated funding.
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).
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.
This year we are proudly celebrating the 10 Year Anniversary of The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS)! SIPS is a service organisation aiming to promote higher quality, more rigorous, more replicable, and more cumulative psychological science by pursuing activities including:
Improving training and research practices
Improving policies/norms
Promoting metascience
Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusivity in psychology
Five core values drive our efforts: self-improvement, transparency and openness, critical evaluation, inclusivity, and civil dialogue.
Here we provide a brief history of SIPS, as well as reflections on what we have achieved to date and what the future holds!
History of SIPS
Simine Vazire and Brian Nosek founded SIPS in June 2016 with support from the University of California, Davis, and the Center for Open Science (COS). We owe Simine and Brian a huge debt of gratitude for their critical roles in the creation of SIPS. SIPS was incorporated as a non-profit in July 2017, allowing us to begin collecting membership dues and to eventually become self-sustaining.
Our first meeting was held in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2016 with 100 attendees.
Following successful conferences once again in Charlottesville (2017) and then in Grand Rapids, Michigan (2018), we took the show out of the U.S. to Rotterdam, The Netherlands, for our first European conference (2019), drawing our highest ever in-person attendance (521).
In 2020, the pandemic hit, necessitating on-line only conferences for that and the following year. In both years we had massive on-line attendance (over 1000 at each). In 2022, we emerged from our living rooms to be once again face to face, this time in Victoria, British Columbia. We also began a continuing tradition that year of hosting both in-person and online conferences.
In 2023, we were back in Europe, in Padua, Italy, and then last year, in a truly groundbreaking development, we took SIPS to the Majority World for the first time, holding our conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in collaboration with the Busara Center.
Membership Growth and Social Media Following
The figure below shows our membership growth over time. After an initial period of growth, our numbers have now stabilized around 450. In addition, by the end of 2024 we had some 2,500 Bluesky followers and 899 Mastodon followers.
Conference Attendance
The figure below shows our in-person and online attendance over time. After initial growth, the pandemic moved us online with very high attendance. Following that unusual period, our attendance has declined, but remains respectable and roughly similar to pre-pandemic levels.
Note: Prior to 2020 conferences were in-person only, while in 2020 and 2021 they were online only. In 2022 and 2023 conferences were hybrid in-person/online while in 2024 they were separate events.
Signature Achievements
We have had many notable successes in our first decade. Here we highlight four examples: (1) Support for our members, (2) Collabra: Psychology, (3) PsyArXiv, and (4) Diversifying psychological science. Other products and achievements can be found here.
Member Support
Support for our members has taken many forms including, but not limited to, membership fee waivers, conference registration waivers and travel grants, and grants-in-aid for SIPS-relevant projects. The figure below shows growth in our financial support for these purposes over time. The dip in 2020 and 2021 reflects the fact that travel waivers were not needed because our conferences were fully online. The large increases in 2022 and 2023 reflects the introduction of our grants-in aid program.
Collabra: Psychology
Collabra: Psychology was launched in 2015 by University of California Press and quickly established as the official journal of SIPS. University of California Press is the non-profit, mission-driven publishing arm of the University of California system.
Collabra has championed numerous practices aimed at improving psychological science, including Open Peer review and Streamlined Review, as well as setting aside a portion of article processing charge (APC) fees to support publication by authors who otherwise lack publication funding.
The figure below shows impressive growth over time in Collabra publications. SIPS members are welcome and encouraged to submit to Collabra: Psychology – please visit online.ucpress.edu/collabra or see the journal’s Submission Guidelines for more information.
PsyArXiV
PsyArXiv is the free preprint server for psychology that hosts over 40,000 preprints, whitepapers, and other manuscripts. PsyArXiv makes it possible to disseminate and access academic research without paywalls and users do not pay to upload or download material. It was established by SIPS in 2016 with generous support from the Center for Open Science, and is hosted on the Open Science Framework. PsyArXiv is now financially supported by direct funding from SIPS and by generous contributions from member institutions, to keep this vital service up and running. The figure below shows the rapid growth over time in preprints posted to PsyArXiv per year.
Diversifying Psychological Science
Increasingly, SIPS has emphasized the importance of diversity in developing a truly rigorous, ecologically valid, psychological science. Our efforts in this regard have been driven by the recommendations of the Global Engagement Taskforce Report commissioned by SIPS in 2020. Our Nairobi conference reflected this diversity emphasis in terms of location, attendance, session themes and leads, and our partnership with Busara.
Some Reflections on SIPS from our Founders, Presidents, and Followers
We recently asked our current and former leaders, as well as our followers on social media, to provide short reflections on what SIPS has achieved and what it has meant to them professionally or personally. We include those reflections below.
What is immediately apparent from the word cloud derived from the reflections is an overwhelming emphasis on the importance of community. For all of us, SIPS is a community of scholars who are passionate about improving the quality of psychological science! What was formerly a scattered group of individuals has now grown into a much larger, interconnected, and increasingly global village.
Simine Vazire (Co-Founder and President 2016-17)
It’s been a pleasure watching SIPS grow and evolve since we founded it in 2016. I haven’t been involved in a leadership role in a few years, which makes it especially gratifying to see it continue to thrive. I think SIPS has done a great job adapting to how the field is changing, while sticking to its mission and values. Going to the conferences each year, it’s clear that SIPS serves as an important community and catalyst for those eager to help create change in the field. And it’s great to see so many new faces every year – the future of the field is looking bright.
Brian Nosek (Co-Founder)
Improving culture is a collective action problem. No one can change a culture on their own. This results in feeling disempowered and alienated when a culture is misaligned with our ideals. SIPS is a solution to the collective action problem. SIPS has provided a venue for people who want to improve the research culture to gather, debate what improvements are needed, experiment with new approaches, evaluate whether they could work, and disseminate them to the research community. Of course, the ultimate objective is to benefit the research community, but I am most grateful for the benefits that SIPS has provided to me personally — a sense of belonging, community spirit, and empowerment.
Katie Corker (President 2018, current Financial Officer)
I’ve felt very fortunate to support SIPS’ work and growth over these past 10 years. It’s quite humbling to step back and look at all that we have done and built as a community. SIPS’ action orientation is still the thing that best distinguishes it from other initiatives. Many people have stepped up to put in the work that is needed to realize the changes we’re advocating for. I don’t take that work for granted.
Sanjay Srivastava (President 2019)
For many of us, the early days of the open science movement were like a big social referencing experiment. For a long time, you would see a result that is too clean or too surprising, but you’d look around and nobody is reacting. So you would talk yourself into thinking it is normal and believable. All of a sudden that shifted – you could turn to someone and say, “Did I just see what I think I just saw?” And there was someone saying “Yeah, I saw it too.”
Social media was a big reason for that. There were a handful of blogs where you could find those other people in the comment section. Then researchers started finding Twitter and connecting on it. So maybe you were the only person in your department wondering what was going on – but now you could find your people.
But like everything else, social media is a mix of good and bad. There are limits to building a community on an open social media network – you cannot keep out the deniers, trolls, and assholes. And social media is great for talking, but to turn that talk into action, you need more.
SIPS was founded to solve both of those problems. By design, it was an inclusive community focused on action. The initial vision came from Simine and Brian. But they did something very wise – they built it from the ground up to be driven by the community. The innovative conference format, the power-sharing governance structure, all were designed with that in mind.
Those first SIPS conferences were pivotal experiences for me and, I suspect, for many others. There was lots of “hey I know you from Twitter.” But on a deeper level, people who had experienced isolation and hostility from colleagues suddenly had a community that would support them, that would get excited about their ideas, and that would pitch in and get to work side-by-side with them.
One of my interests in those early days was on using SIPS to make science open to, and inclusive of, more people. I organized diversity hackathons at several early conferences, and when I got into governance, I helped write the first Code of Conduct (SIPS was the first scholarly society in psychology I knew about that had one) – and then, after a term as President where I had to enforce it, wrote a major revision drawing on lessons learned. I was never alone in this work – there was lots of energy among society members. It was sometimes difficult work. But it was also rewarding to see tangible outcomes and real progress.
I have been less directly involved in SIPS the past few years, first because of a personal decision to reduce travel, and then a career change to industry. But the work I did on open science, including SIPS, is some of the most important to me in my career so far. I am excited to see SIPS continue to thrive and spread its reach around the world.
Alexa Tullett (President 2020)
I’m extremely proud to have been associated with SIPS in these early years of what I hope will be a long existence. For me, SIPS has been an example of what can happen when you build a scientific community from the ground up, constantly challenging our ideas about what that is supposed to look like. If an unconference is a conference that up-ends the basic assumptions of the form, then SIPS must be an unsociety. As SIPS enters its second decade, I look forward to all the news ways that SIPS members will break my brain and expand my imagination.
Heather Urry (President 2021)
SIPS has been foundational to my continuing development as a mid-to-late career scientist; I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to learn through SIPS events and members how to increase the transparency and credibility of my research. From my vantage point as a former member of the Executive Committee, SIPS has done a great job building a community of people willing to share their expertise, making SIPS spaces safe and inclusive, and making funding available to support its mission. A challenge for SIPS moving forward is how to navigate its own mid-career stage of development now that open science practices are more common. We must continue to evolve and innovate ways to foster inclusion, transparency, and credibility for scientists with a wide range of scientific approaches and sensibilities without leaving anyone behind. Let’s do this!
Morton Gernsbacher (President 2022)
I was delighted to serve as President of SIPS in 2022. In addition to serving our core values and hosting an exciting conference, we awarded nine SIPS Travel Awards of $2000 each, four SIPS Grants in Aid that combined for a total payout of $5000, and awarded the inaugural SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding, which, along with the SIPS Grants In Aid, were instigated by my amazing predecessor, Heather Urry, who served as SIPS President in 2021 and who creatively moved SIPS forward in marvelous ways. One aspect of serving SIPS as President, as well as other committee roles, that inspired me was demonstrating that not all the old guard (e.g., folks like me who earned their PhD over forty years ago) are resistant to improving psychological science!
Crystal Steltenpohl (President 2023)
SIPS has provided me so many opportunities to meet scholars who approach knowledge discovery differently than how I was taught. I am constantly in awe of the dedication, intelligence, and kindness of this community as we work together to improve psychological science. Going forward, I hope we can remain dedicated to the idea of continuous improvement and to resist the urge to become dogmatic, to resist the urge to get too locked in any singular path forward. We benefit so much from the diversity of perspectives and approaches that are present in our community, and I hope we keep fostering an environment where we learn from each other.
Clare Conry-Murray (President 2024)
Here are a few sentences on what we achieved during my presidency (23-24) and my thoughts on SIPS. We held our first conference on the continent of Africa in Nairobi, Kenya and it was a great success. I’m happy to see that we continue to connect with the people who attended, since we have a new EC board member from Nairobi: Catherine Karanja. We made an effort to make SIPS procedures more well-documented and transparent. SIPS continues to influence how I do my job, and how I interact in the world. SIPS does not accept the status quo. SIPS teaches us to think about our most important values and consider how to best enact those values–even if it means challenging conventional practices. I hope to do the same in all my endeavors.
Priya Silverstein (President 2025)
From attending my first SIPS in 2019 in Rotterdam to becoming President in 2024, it has been great to see SIPS evolve over this time. Of particular note, we have seen diversity and inclusion in psychology be an increasingly large portion of the programming, which I am very happy about. I look forward to continuing to serve the SIPS community this year! I met my boyfriend (soon to be husband) at [online!] SIPS 2022! I have also made loads of friends and colleagues through SIPS, and have joined and led several successful collaborations through hackathons. Very grateful for what SIPS has given me and excited to give back through my presidency!
Lisa Spitzer
Attending my first SIPS in Rotterdam was actually one of my main motivators to start a PhD! I really really wanted to contribute to the open science movement, and I am super happy that I was able to focus on a metascience PhD project at @zpid.bsky.social ❤️
Jade Pickering
Been attending SIPS since 2019! I’ve met so many amazing people and been involved in loads of projects I wouldn’t have otherwise. It really helped me during my PhD and postdocs, and SIPS still supports my passion of improving psychological science from an academic-adjacent role ❤
Jay Patel
Well, SIPS 2018 convinced me to take up metascience projects in my spare time and switch my focus to it full-time. It was life-changing, especially 2 years after attending a Nosek talk at my university.
Pam Davis-Kean
I have had multiple papers come out of SIPS meetings as well as good conversations on how to increase the rigor of psych science. Dev Psych and researchers that used observational studies were a small group. So I have dropped my attendance because I have felt less connected. However, I often reference SIPS as the type of conference I like-because you generate new ideas and products for the community.
Daniel Moriarity
Loved having a model of a society driven by an inspirationally broad meta-mission + getting the chance to connect and increase my awareness of scholars from across disciplines and the world who share the goal of improving psychological science.
The Future of SIPS
Much has been achieved over the last decade but much remains to be done. The word cloud and reflections above reflect that fact with many references to moving forward. At the end of 2024 we brought together a group of prominent early reformers to discuss lessons from our first decade with an eye to the future. If you weren’t able to attend that online event we encourage you to watch the recording here.
Finally, we encourage everyone to come to SIPS 2025: either in-person in Budapest, Hungary, June 25-27, or online May 21-22. We hope to see many of you at either or both events and wish you well for a happy, safe, productive year!
PsyArXiv, the psychological science preprint server, needs your support to continue serving as a free platform for sharing our work.
Created during SIPS 2016 by SIPS members like you, PsyArXiv is one of the most successful SIPS Products. It is maintained by SIPS and hosted by OSF Preprints, which allows it to seamlessly interface with OSF projects. PsyArXiv currently hosts around 30 thousand preprints with more than 6,000 new manuscripts being added every year, and an average of 9 thousand page views per day!
Although the service is (and always will be) free to end users, it is not free to run. Specifically, SIPS incurs costs on an annual basis for the technology to host the service, which includes things like user technical support and DOI minting. As the number of preprints increases, so do the costs associated with maintaining PsyArXiv. In 2022 alone, the expenses related to the support of PsyArXiv were $24,999.00, paid to the Center for Open Science (COS), which amounted to 31.1% of SIPS’s total expenses that year. You can find detailed information about those costs in SIPS’s financial reports.
To be able to continue to pay for PsyArXiv’s increasing expenses, SIPS has joined forces with other preprint servers to seek a more sustainable funding solution involving institutional support. If you think your institution might be willing to support PsyArXiv, please reach out to Sean Rife (srife1@murraystate.edu).
In parallel, we are reaching out to our members with a request for individual donations. If you are in a position to contribute personally, even a modest donation can make a significant impact. Donors can give directly here on our website.
Every contribution takes us one step closer to securing the future of PsyArXiv, and relieves the financial burden on SIPS, allowing us to reinvest that money into our community through initiatives like grants-in-aid and conference travel and attendance grants.
Thank you for your ongoing support towards improving psychological science!
We are very pleased to announce the 2023 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.
Alex O. Holcombe, Marton Kovacs, Frederik Aust, Balazs Aczel
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).
Lukas Röseler, Christopher Doetsch, Leonard Kaiser, Noah Klett, Josefine Krapp, Christian Seida, Astrid Schütz, Jamie Cummins, Tobias Dienlin, Mahmoud Elsherif, Nico Förster, Oliver Genschow, Timo Gnambs, Helena Hartmann, Darías Holgado, Ian Hussey, Max Korbmacher, Luisa Kulke, Nigel Mantou Lou, Manuel Rausch, Robert Ross, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura, Zoran Pavlović, Katarzyna Pypno, and Leigh Ann Vaughn
SIPS solicits nominations of projects that support our mission on a year-round basis. To be considered for the next round, please make your nominations by April 30.
The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science is pleased to announce we are accepting proposals for another round of grants-in-aid to reduce barriers to improving psychological science. These grants are aimed at supporting projects that will improve access, collaboration, inclusion, networking, outreach, and/or education within the field of psychology.
For the purposes of these grants, we define projects broadly. Examples of projects in alphabetical order include (but are not limited to) educational resources, interactive media, preconferences, small in-person gatherings to complement online conferences, social networks, software, tutorials, webinars, and workshops. Applicants should, however, feel free to submit projects not captured in these examples or propose to build on existing projects.
The grants-in-aid and other financial programs are made possible through SIPS memberships and generous donations from SIPS members and supporters. If you are interested in supporting this and other initiatives, please join SIPS or consider donating to one of our funds. SIPS membership waivers are available for those who would like to be involved with the organization and need financial assistance.
The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) and the journal, Collabra: Psychology,together invite researchers to propose empirical research projects that will be considered in parallel for research funding by SIPS and a publication decision by Collabra: Psychology.
With this registered report funding partnership (RRFP), we seek to encourage empirical research that 1) addresses questions in hard-to-reach populations or otherwise seeks to maximize generalizability, and 2) reflects rigorous, inclusive psychological science that is open and reported transparently regardless of results.
Proposals will be formatted as a stage 1 registered report, described below. All topics and approaches that fit the aims and scope of Collabra: Psychology are welcome. Although the registered report article format was optimized for confirmatory research, we welcome quantitative, qualitative, confirmatory, exploratory, and computational modeling approaches.
REGISTERED REPORT FORMAT
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.”
A stage 1 registered report (RR) contains an introduction, method section, and (optionally) any pilot data. The introduction sets the context for key research questions with reference to supporting literature and explains how the proposed research will advance our understanding of hard-to-reach populations or maximize generalizability. The method section describes the design, subjects (if applicable), materials, procedure, and analysis plan. Analysis of pilot data can be presented to substantiate aspects of the proposed research.
RRFP PROCESS IN BRIEF
Researchers responding to this call for proposals will describe their proposed research in a stage 1 RR manuscript. For detailed instructions about writing a stage 1 RR, see pages 3-6 of the Collabra: Psychology Registered Reports detailed guidelines. See also Collabra’s tips for avoiding desk rejection at stage 1 on pages 8-10.
When the stage 1 RR is ready, the lead contributor will submit the stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology by the deadline. SIPS and Collabra: Psychology will independently evaluate the proposed research in parallel.
SIPS will make funding decisions; possible outcomes include denial or approval of funding. Collabra: Psychology will make publication decisions; possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or in-principle acceptance. In-principle acceptance means “the article will be published pending successful completion of the study according to the exact methods and analytic procedures outlined, as well as a defensible and evidence-bound interpretation of the results” (p. 5 of the guidelines).
Funding and publication decisions will be based on a commitment to support research that prioritizes addressing questions in hard-to-reach populations or otherwise seeks to maximize generalizability and research that is rigorously and transparently conducted, statistically sound, adequately powered, fairly analyzed, and worthy of inclusion in the scholarly record.
Funding is not contingent on achieving in-principle acceptance at Collabra: Psychology.
Pending satisfaction of conditions described under Award Information below, SIPS will award funds to lead contributors who were granted funding regardless of the outcome at Collabra: Psychology.
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. Lead contributors may submit only one application per deadline. Collabra: Psychology’s Editor-in-chief, Collabra: Psychology’s Senior Editors, and members of the SIPS Executive Committee are ineligible to be lead contributors.
We 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.
AWARD INFORMATION
Contributors may request up to $2,500 USD. SIPS intends to commit $5,000 USD total across 2-10 awards. In addition, if the lead contributor does not have access to funds for the article processing charge through their institution, they may request a waiver from Collabra: Psychology.
Funds may not be used for salary support for personnel or 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).
Release of SIPS funds to the lead contributor is contingent on the following conditions:
The lead contributor must submit the decision letter from Collabra: Psychology to SIPS.
The lead contributor must commit to carrying out the proposed research. If contributors no longer plan to conduct the research, they should decline the SIPS award.
For stage 1 RRs involving research with human or animal subjects, the lead contributor must submit documentation of approval or exemption from their institutional review board / ethics committee / animal care and use committee to SIPS. (Some research may require approval or exemption by regulatory bodies at other contributors’ institutions. The research cannot proceed until all approvals or exemptions are in place.)
The application process will combine funding review by SIPS with peer review by Collabra: Psychology. The deadline to submit the stage 1 RR is 1 August 2022. The process will unfold on the following timeline:
1 March 2022
SIPS will announce its registered report funding partnership with Collabra: Psychology
1 August 2022
Contributors will submit a stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology. (Submission link below.) The stage 1 RR should present an introduction, method, analysis plan, and results of any pilot studies, if applicable. It should adhere to Collabra: Psychology’seditorial policies. When submitting to Collabra: Psychology, authors should include a cover letter indicating that the stage 1 RR is being submitted for consideration via the SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding Partnership.
~August to October 2022
Collabra: Psychology will review the stage 1 manuscript and relay word to the lead contributor. Possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or in-principle acceptance. In parallel, SIPS will make in-principle funding decisions after removal of contributor information from proposals and relay word to the lead contributor. Possible outcomes include denial or conditional approval of funding.
November 2022 and beyond
Assuming funding conditions are met, SIPS will release funds to the lead contributor of stage 1 RRs that receive a decision from Collabra: Psychology, whatever the outcome. This ends SIPS involvement in the partnership. Contributors will then conduct the research and write the stage 2 RR. The stage 2 RR should present the introduction, method, results, and discussion after data collection and analysis. Contributors submit their stage 2 RR with a cover letter to Collabra: Psychology written according to journal guidelines. Possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or acceptance for publication by the journal.
HOW TO APPLY
Write a stage 1 RR that includes the following sections:
A title page (page 1) showing the title, names and affiliations of all contributors.
An abstract (page 2) summarizing the research.
An introduction that sets the context for key research questions with reference to supporting literature. If applicable, explain how the proposed research will advance our understanding of hard-to-reach populations or maximize generalizability.
A method section that describes the design, subjects (if applicable), materials, procedure, and analysis plan.
A references section for works cited in the proposal; these do not contribute to the word limit.
The lead contributor should submit the stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology by 1 August 2022. Submit here.
List the lead contributor as the corresponding author.
Indicate in the cover letter that the stage 1 RR should be considered via the SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding Partnership.
When prompted by the editorial staff at Collabra: Psychology, complete the two required submission questionnaires. One has journal-required fields; the other has the SIPS-required fields noted at the bottom of this call for proposals.
QUESTIONS AND SPONSORSHIP
Questions? Please email sips@improvingpsych.org.
Sponsored by: SIPS membership dues and donations, and Collabra: Psychology via waiver of the article processing charge for some contributors at the journal’s discretion
1. Please provide the names and role(s) of all contributors to the research. For roles, please succinctly describe what each contributor will do in service of the project; if applicable, consider using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy:
2. Lead Contributor’s Last/Family Name:
3. Lead Contributor’s First/Given Name:
4. Lead Contributor’s Institution:
5. Lead Contributor’s Email address:
6. Title of the manuscript submitted to Collabra: Psychology:
7. Which of the following describes the lead contributor? (Select all that apply):
SIPS member (required)
Agrees to share stage 1 RR publicly if funded (required)
Scholar who is a member of a group that is underrepresented in psychological science
Scholar in training position (e.g., student, postdoc)
Scholar who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years
Scholar working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited
Scholar living and working outside Canada, Europe, and USA
8. Which of the following describes the proposed research? (Select all that apply):
Addresses questions in hard-to-reach populations
Seeks to maximize generalizability
9. Does the project involve human or animal subjects? (yes/no)
10. Provide a timeline for research activities, and a budget covering up to $2,500 USD in research expenses. The budget may not include salary support for personnel or indirect costs to institutions. The budget may include a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the research (e.g., undergraduate or graduate research assistance):
